God Does Not Exist - Question about that

[Loki]

The weak part of Dan's argument is that it's vulnerable to this sort of counter argument:

If a conscious entity realizes his identity has it's roots in the infinite, then he is thus an infinite God. That being said, it is possible that this particular universe was set into motion by some kind of powerful alien being (or a group of alien beings) beings that identified with the infinite.

The strong aspect of Dan's argument is that it perhaps proves that it's impossible for God to have created infinite reality, because infinite reality maybe a requisite to being conscious to begin with.

[baulz owt]

The strong aspect of Dan's argument is that it perhaps proves that it's impossible for God to have created infinite reality, because infinite reality maybe a requisite to being conscious to begin with.

I can agree with that. I just don't see how it's life-changing.

[Cory Duchesne]

Well, it's good to find out what's true, otherwise you can go down some pretty sordid roads. Ultimately, I don't think it's so much about what truth does for you, it's really about what it prevents you from doing. I know a lot of people who have stupid beliefs, and it's from those beliefs that they act (quite stupidly).

I remember Quinn using a term not too long ago: "energetic incompetency"

In my experience, irrational beliefs can really energize a person, causing them to act stupidly, often with great persistence.

[Ignius]

I like all of Dan's videos. Thanks!

[David Quinn]

I just watched Rowden's God Does Not Exist youtube vid.

Dan, or someone similar, I have a question.

Isn't it true that the Sage is God? I say this because the Sage identifies with the infinite, and thus is an infinite God.

That being said, isn't it possible that this universe was set into motion by some kind of powerful alien being, one which identified himself with the infinite?

No. When the sage identifies with the infinite, he doesn't try to stretch out his own consciousness so that it too becomes infinite or anything like that. Rather, he recognizes that his infinite nature, of which his own consciousness is a miniscule part, is responsible for the existence of all things.

This applies just as much to a powerful alien being as it does to a human.

-

[David Quinn]

If infinite reality is beyond existence and non-existence, then the syllogism in Dan's video falls apart. Correct?

Incorrect. Dan's conclusion that it does not exist aligns with the truth that it is beyond existence. But he did slyly leave out the other side of the equation in his video - namely, that it is beyond non-existence as well.

"Existence" and "non-existence" are categories that can't be applied to it.

Stating that God is an invention of man's thought is a conclusion many people make, yet I see no logical reason why it must be so.

If the God that is being conceived contains self-contradictions or is without rational basis, then it is an invention.

In Dan's video, he identifies God with infinity. But why is this a valid identification?

Because there is nothing bigger.

My point is that the human mind cannot conceive of infinity, except as an abstraction. As an abstraction, it is conceived of all the time by mathematicians with startling and unexpected successes. Since these successes are demonstrable, it can be concluded that infinity does indeed exist. If it exists as an abstraction, then it exists.

This is poorly worded. In its current form, your final conclusion here doesn't have any logical connection to your preceding sentences. That is why people are taking issue with it.

It would be true to say that the human mind cannot perceive infinity the same way it can perceive finiteness. The argument is made in numerous instances of QRS writing that this very concept of finiteness is an illusion, that there are no boundaries out there.

This is not really true, either.

When a person first begins to reason about the infinite, he treats it as an abstraction. He deduces the reality of the infinite from what he perceives around him.

But if he reasons about it futher and comes to know the nature of the infinite more intimately, it ceases to be an abstraction for him and instead becomes the concrete reality around him, and in him. This is the stage where philosophy transforms into spirituality. The infinite ceases to be a mere abstraction and instead becomes the vital reality of his existence.

If a person isn't experiencing the full nature of the infinite in every moment - concretely, directly and consciously, in every situation he finds himself in - then he doesn't really know it at all.

The whole of God's nature can be found in a crumpled leaf or a speck of dust if you know how to look.

-

[Loki]

When a person first begins to reason about the infinite, he treats it as an abstraction. He deduces the reality of the infinite from what he perceives around him.

But if he reasons about it further and comes to know the nature of the infinite more intimately, it ceases to be an abstraction for him and instead becomes the concrete reality around him, and in him.

This is the stage where philosophy transforms into spirituality. The infinite ceases to be a mere abstraction and instead becomes the vital reality of his existence.

If a person isn't experiencing the full nature of the infinite in every moment - concretely, directly and consciously, in every situation he finds himself in - then he doesn't really know it at all.

The whole of God's nature can be found in a crumpled leaf or a speck of dust if you know how to look.

David, can you give me an example of the sort of thoughts you have as a result of experiencing of the full nature of the infinite?

When experiencing the full nature of the infinite, do you spontaneously experience a variety of absolute truths in a sort of creative and fluid way? Sliding from one logical truth to another?

[brokenhead]

Incorrect. Dan's conclusion that it does not exist aligns with the truth that it is beyond existence. But he did slyly leave out the other side of the equation in his video - namely, that it is beyond non-existence as well.

Yes, very sly of him.

If the God that is being conceived contains self-contradictions or is without rational basis, then it is an invention.

I could not agree with you more.

Because there is nothing bigger.

So bigger is better?

This is poorly worded. In its current form, your final conclusion here doesn't have any logical connection to your preceding sentences. That is why people are taking issue with it.

Yes it most certainly does, David. If we are going to wrangle over which abstraction of infinity is the correct one or a better one, well, this is your forum, yeah? You cannot gainsay my paraphrasing your viewpoint this way: "My position is unassailable by definition."

The whole of God's nature can be found in a crumpled leaf or a speck of dust if you know how to look.

Indeed it can.

[David Quinn]

When a person first begins to reason about the infinite, he treats it as an abstraction. He deduces the reality of the infinite from what he perceives around him.

But if he reasons about it further and comes to know the nature of the infinite more intimately, it ceases to be an abstraction for him and instead becomes the concrete reality around him, and in him.

This is the stage where philosophy transforms into spirituality. The infinite ceases to be a mere abstraction and instead becomes the vital reality of his existence.

If a person isn't experiencing the full nature of the infinite in every moment - concretely, directly and consciously, in every situation he finds himself in - then he doesn't really know it at all.

The whole of God's nature can be found in a crumpled leaf or a speck of dust if you know how to look.

David, can you give me an example of the sort of thoughts you have as a result of experiencing of the full nature of the infinite?

Thoughts that are effortless, care-free, resolved, aimless, and tranquil are the order of the day. Whether it be deep thoughts about the nature of reality or trivial thoughts about a practical matter, the experience is the same. One drinks in the highest wisdom as though it were mundane and obvious, and one drinks in the mundane aspects of one's surroundings as though they were the most significant things to ever occur in the universe.

When experiencing the full nature of the infinite, do you spontaneously experience a variety of absolute truths in a sort of creative and fluid way? Sliding from one logical truth to another?

Yes, but only when it is natural to do so. There isn't any particular urge to uncover logical truths, nor any frantic need to keep the fire of understanding going. The brain is allowed to make connections as it pleases.

The definitive sign that one is enlightened is when one is able to direct one's attention to the nature of reality at the drop of a hat, without any need to engage in mental processes or solve philosophic problems. In other words, when one has the capacity to become enlightened once more (i.e. to see into the nature of reality) with an instantaneous application of will. Such an achievement happens when one becomes intimately familiar with the ins and outs of seeing into the nature of reality. It is the great prize of spiritual expertise.


-

[David Quinn]

Incorrect. Dan's conclusion that it does not exist aligns with the truth that it is beyond existence. But he did slyly leave out the other side of the equation in his video - namely, that it is beyond non-existence as well.

Yes, very sly of him.

Well, he was thinking about that $2500 prize!

Because there is nothing bigger.

So bigger is better?

In this instance, yes. A God that is not infinite is quickly reduced to miniscule proportions, on a par with a human being, in the face of the infinite.

This is poorly worded. In its current form, your final conclusion here doesn't have any logical connection to your preceding sentences. That is why people are taking issue with it.

Yes it most certainly does, David. If we are going to wrangle over which abstraction of infinity is the correct one or a better one, well, this is your forum, yeah? You cannot gainsay my paraphrasing your viewpoint this way: "My position is unassailable by definition."

I can't believe I have to spell it out. Your preceding sentences outlined that the infinite exists because mathematicians, etc, have demonstrated "startling and unexpected successes" with the infinite-concept. Your final conclusion ignored all that and simply stated that the mere existence of the infinite-concept is enough to prove the infinite's existence. Loki's "that's so weird" is an understatement.

-

[brokenhead]

I can't believe I have to spell it out. Your preceding sentences outlined that the infinite exists because mathematicians, etc, have demonstrated "startling and unexpected successes" with the infinite-concept. Your final conclusion ignored all that and simply stated that the mere existence of the infinite-concept is enough to prove the infinite's existence. Loki's "that's so weird" is an understatement.

I AM NOT AS SLY AS DAN ROWDEN! The final conclusion should have been worded - more slyly - the existence of the abstracted infinite-concept is enough to prove that the infinite does not NOT exist. Maybe Loki is not so sly, either.

Do we get to divvy up the $2,500?

[Loki]

When a person first begins to reason about the infinite, he treats it as an abstraction. He deduces the reality of the infinite from what he perceives around him.

But if he reasons about it further and comes to know the nature of the infinite more intimately, it ceases to be an abstraction for him and instead becomes the concrete reality around him, and in him.

This is the stage where philosophy transforms into spirituality. The infinite ceases to be a mere abstraction and instead becomes the vital reality of his existence.

How so? Do you mean that prior to realizing the infinite clearly, one is very conventional in ones actions, but after realizing the infinite clearly, one makes radically different choices?

[Sapius]

.
Loki, no disrespect, but my questions were actually address to Dan, who made that argument in the video, and who may NOT hold the same views as yourself; so according to HIS view and philosophy, he has been dishonest, which is no surprise really, since most of the profound philosophers of truth more often then not speak - to put is mildly, “half-truths”, which I simply keep pointing out, but of course they have their own method of helping fellow human beings, incidentally who are also boundaries that are necessarily made-up for practical purposes, for example, enlightenment, otherwise, there is no demarcations in reality, isn't it? You make-up the doundary that makes-up me, and I make-up the boundary that makes-up you... as BH quotes Kevin...

Kevin: Know that any boundary line you draw to designate a "beginning" will by necessity be totally arbitrary. Nonetheless such boundaries must be made-up for practical purposes, there being no demarcations in reality.

---

So actually, your response does not really address my point… however...

BH: My point is that the human mind cannot conceive of infinity, except as an abstraction.
L: Yes, I think Dan would agree with you there.
S: I don’t know whether Dan will agree or not, but what I want to know is; is an abstraction an appearance or not?
L: Yes, it is.

For example, the point is, does it exist or not? Where to exist means to present an appearance, so if an abstraction presents an appearance, then it exists.

Now…

S: And what exactly isn’t an abstraction that stands before the mind? things experienced through sensory organs? Like the cup?

L: Yes, things we sense with our eyes, ears, nose, etc. These aren't abstractions.

May be... according to you that is, but it shouldn’t be according to Dan’s philosophy. I would like to hear from him… what is and is not an abstraction/idea?

What I finally expect in response is… that “The Infinite” (=God) as conceived by him, is beyond such concepts of “exist” and “not exist”, but then, he has been dishonest in the video, and not only “sly” as per his friend David. Who incidentally has openly admitted that it is quite ok to lie for the sake of spreading wisdom and truth, so I guess it should be acceptable. After all it was a matter of $ 2500 :D

Similarly, the rest of your response may not reflect Dan’s philosophy, so I will leave it at just that.

[David Quinn]

When a person first begins to reason about the infinite, he treats it as an abstraction. He deduces the reality of the infinite from what he perceives around him.

But if he reasons about it further and comes to know the nature of the infinite more intimately, it ceases to be an abstraction for him and instead becomes the concrete reality around him, and in him.

This is the stage where philosophy transforms into spirituality. The infinite ceases to be a mere abstraction and instead becomes the vital reality of his existence.

How so? Do you mean that prior to realizing the infinite clearly, one is very conventional in ones actions, but after realizing the infinite clearly, one makes radically different choices?

They might be radically different, they might not. But instead of acting conventionally out of habit or fear or unchallenged assumptions, the realized person acts intelligently and efficiently in regards to whatever matter is at hand and isn't afraid to be unconventional (or conventional) if he deems it rational to do so.

-

[Loki]

I just watched Rowden's God Does Not Exist youtube vid.

Dan, or someone similar, I have a question.

Isn't it true that the Sage is God? I say this because the Sage identifies with the infinite, and thus is an infinite God.

That being said, isn't it possible that this universe was set into motion by some kind of powerful alien being, one which identified himself with the infinite?

No. When the sage identifies with the infinite, he doesn't try to stretch out his own consciousness so that it too becomes infinite or anything like that.

I'm not saying the sage tries to stretch his consciousness to become infinite. I'm just saying that he identifies himself with the totality of nature.

"The eye with which I see God is the eye with which God sees me"

Perhaps this universe of ours was created by an alien being who correctly identified himself as God?

Rather, he recognizes that his infinite nature, of which his own consciousness is a miniscule part, is responsible for the existence of all things. This applies just as much to a powerful alien being as it does to a human.

I disagree with your attempt to make the infinite seem big. A powerful alien being isn't necessarily minuscule. Relative to us creatures on earth, such a being may indeed be God-like and massive. In fact, for you to say that there is always an object that makes this powerful alien being minuscule is not an absolute truth. For all you know, this powerful alien being may be objectively the biggest object in all of existence.

[brokenhead]

Incorrect. Dan's conclusion that it does not exist aligns with the truth that it is beyond existence. But he did slyly leave out the other side of the equation in his video - namely, that it is beyond non-existence as well.

Listen, you. Yes, you, Mr. Man-of-the-Infinite. The Infinite neither exists nor does it not exist. Yet we are discussing it. Do you not see the contradiction? Do I have to spell it out for you? It is irrational to speak about something that neither exists nor does not exist. Rational thought itself requires duality at minimum. The Infinite and only the Infinite neither exists nor does not exist. Or do you not know the derivation of the term rational? Rational thought is not the only kind of mentation, and most of the mentation that is not rational is not irrational, either.

The last of the seven veils, David. You can go through it, but when you come back you can't say what you saw there, there's no getting around it, no matter how many web sites you put up.

If the thing in itself is not what we perceive, then there must be a difference between the outer world and the inner world, i.e.. a boundary between phenomenon and noumenon. All boundaries are illusions, though. So which is it, David?

[Robert]

Perhaps this universe of ours was created by an alien being who correctly identified himself as God?
...
A powerful alien being isn't necessarily minuscule. Relative to us creatures on earth, such a being may indeed be God-like and massive. In fact, for you to say that there is always an object that makes this powerful alien being minuscule is not an absolute truth. For all you know, this powerful alien being may be objectively the biggest object in all of existence.

Loki, I think what David might be getting at is that even if some powerful God-like alien being were to exist, whatever it's relative size, it would also be a part of existence and therefore finite. If it's finite, it's has the same fundamental nature of any other thing in existence, namely it is a result of causes. Even if it did create this universe, or any other, I wouldn't call it God, since it isn't everything.

Incorrect. Dan's conclusion that it does not exist aligns with the truth that it is beyond existence. But he did slyly leave out the other side of the equation in his video - namely, that it is beyond non-existence as well.

Listen, you. Yes, you, Mr. Man-of-the-Infinite. The Infinite neither exists nor does it not exist. Yet we are discussing it. Do you not see the contradiction? Do I have to spell it out for you? It is irrational to speak about something that neither exists nor does not exist. Rational thought itself requires duality at minimum. The Infinite and only the Infinite neither exists nor does not exist. Or do you not know the derivation of the term rational? Rational thought is not the only kind of mentation, and most of the mentation that is not rational is not irrational, either.

The last of the seven veils, David. You can go through it, but when you come back you can't say what you saw there, there's no getting around it, no matter how many web sites you put up.

If the thing in itself is not what we perceive, then there must be a difference between the outer world and the inner world, i.e.. a boundary between phenomenon and noumenon. All boundaries are illusions, though. So which is it, David?

I don't see the irrational in this.
The infinte exists because when perceive it as a concept and reason about it. It's a practical tool that we use to compare and contrast with what is finite.
It also doesn't exist because for the infinite to exist means that there must be another infinite to compare it to, a second (at least) infinite. Since by definition there can't be, then we can say it doesn't exist.

[Loki]

Perhaps this universe of ours was created by an alien being who correctly identified himself as God?
...
A powerful alien being isn't necessarily minuscule. Relative to us creatures on earth, such a being may indeed be God-like and massive. In fact, for you to say that there is always an object that makes this powerful alien being minuscule is not an absolute truth. For all you know, this powerful alien being may be objectively the biggest object in all of existence.

Loki, I think what David might be getting at is that even if some powerful God-like alien being were to exist, whatever it's relative size, it would also be a part of existence and therefore finite.

All finite things, according to QRS, actually have their roots in the infinite. We all have an infinite nature, but most of us don't realize this, and thus identify with finitude, rather than infinitude.

If it's finite, it has the same fundamental nature of any other thing in existence, namely it is a result of causes. Even if it did create this universe, or any other, I wouldn't call it God, since it isn't everything.

You fail to understand that boundaries are illusory, and that there really are no things.

Haven't you heard about the Buddha who said he was "one with everything"?

A buddha is a God in the sense that he is conscious of his infinite body.

[Robert]

All finite things, according to QRS, actually have their roots in the infinite. We all have an infinite nature, but most of us don't realize this, and thus identify with finitude, rather than infinitude.

...

You fail to understand that boundaries are illusory, and that there really are no things.

Haven't you heard about the Buddha who said he was "one with everything"?

A buddha is a God in the sense that he is conscious of his infinite body.

I do understand this. What I don't agree with is how this being that you describe can be anything other than not God. Even if it does identify itself with the inifinte, in the way you might, it doesn't make him actually infinite, since he still has an actual body, like you do, and like a Buddha does.

[Loki]

All finite things, according to QRS, actually have their roots in the infinite. We all have an infinite nature, but most of us don't realize this, and thus identify with finitude, rather than infinitude.

...

You fail to understand that boundaries are illusory, and that there really are no things.

Haven't you heard about the Buddha who said he was "one with everything"?

A buddha is a God in the sense that he is conscious of his infinite body.

I do understand this. What I don't agree with is how this being that you describe can be anything other than not God.

Well, if he identifies himself with this family, his material possessions, his personal professional achievements, or his country, then he is not God reflecting on his infinitude. He is instead a worldly man reflecting on his worldliness, a delusional man who sees only delusion.

Even if it does identify itself with the infinite, in the way you might, it doesn't make him actually infinite, since he still has an actual body, like you do, and like a Buddha does.

What is an actual body, but a wave protruding from an infinite ocean? The wave is not some separate thing from the ocean, it's an undivided part of the ocean.

[Robert]

Even if it does identify itself with the infinite, in the way you might, it doesn't make him actually infinite, since he still has an actual body, like you do, and like a Buddha does.

What is an actual body, but a wave protruding from an infinite ocean? The wave is not some separate thing from the ocean, it's an undivided part of the ocean.

I agree. So why bother with thinking up an ET?

[Loki]

Even if it does identify itself with the infinite, in the way you might, it doesn't make him actually infinite, since he still has an actual body, like you do, and like a Buddha does.

What is an actual body, but a wave protruding from an infinite ocean? The wave is not some separate thing from the ocean, it's an undivided part of the ocean.

I agree. So why bother with thinking up an ET?

Well, because this ET may be a God that created our universe, and our universe may have an objective purpose, as a result. Maybe mystical experiences have a greater purpose, and our not some blind result of natural selection. Maybe it's all part of the plan.

[brokenhead]

Well, because this ET may be a God that created our universe, and our universe may have an objective purpose, as a result. Maybe mystical experiences have a greater purpose, and our not some blind result of natural selection. Maybe it's all part of the plan.

You might very well be on to something. This is what I cannot rule out.

[brokenhead]

It also doesn't exist because for the infinite to exist means that there must be another infinite to compare it to, a second (at least) infinite. Since by definition there can't be, then we can say it doesn't exist.

Link to a brief Wikipedia entry on the cardinality or size of infinite sets, or collections of things that have an infinite number of members. Cardinality is the measure of size. Some infinite sets are bigger than others.

The Infinite might be a poorer choice for this than the Totality. The Infinite is a noun. Its normal usage is as an adjective. Totality is purely a noun.

[maestro]

Well, because this ET may be a God that created our universe, and our universe may have an objective purpose, as a result. Maybe mystical experiences have a greater purpose, and our not some blind result of natural selection. Maybe it's all part of the plan.

You might very well be on to something. This is what I cannot rule out.

And what is the use of this speculation? Even if created by something or somebody does not mean there is an objective purpose. And whose purpose anyway? This all imagination.