Dan! You picked up on my sarcasm! There's hope for you yet, mate!Look for God? What a silly notion! How does one look for the everywhere and everywhen?
Beyond God and Evil
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Beyond God and Evil
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Thanks, Dan. That actually means a lot to me. It implies that you consider that my conception of God is free of contradictions, which is my main aim after criticising the Christian conception of God.Dan Rowden wrote:To be very clear: in my case the God in question is specifically the God of your scenario.
Laird
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.earnest_seeker wrote:Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.Dan Rowden wrote:The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.
This sort of religious belief is irrational by default. I can castigate it on those grounds alone. Belief is not truth by dint of the meaning of the words.Dan Rowden wrote:Prove that the belief is not truth before you castigate it.Rationality is cast aside when people believe things for purely emotional reasons, thereby truth as well - or more accurately put - the valuing of it.
There's no credible, rational evidence for it - if you have some, share it; nor is there any sensible reason to believe it - other than emotional. If you have one, then share it. I'm surprisingly open to the miraculous.More importantly, prove that the belief is based on emotional reasons rather than rational ones.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Whoa there! I'm not saying that entirely. You'll note in my original post I stated there were false philosophical interpretations within that scenario. I'm simply saying that, barring those, it's quite possible. i.e. it's possible in its essence.earnest_seeker wrote:Thanks, Dan. That actually means a lot to me. It implies that you consider that my conception of God is free of contradictions, which is my main aim after criticising the Christian conception of God.Dan Rowden wrote:To be very clear: in my case the God in question is specifically the God of your scenario.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Dan: Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.[/quote]Dan: The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.
earnest: Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.
It wasn't an evasion. David said that form could be either internal or external. Therefore it could be purely internal, in which case the external has no relevance: in which case infinity with form is possible.
Lovely. :-) Now I'm free to say: belief that women are by nature unconscious is irrational by default. They both fit into the same category, right?Dan Rowden wrote:This sort of religious belief is irrational by default.
Oh, well, then, clearly that justifies you in your belief that it's false. Where did all of that open-mindedness go?There's no credible, rational evidence for it
Laird
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Laird,
It was to me because you didn't really address the issue of how the internal can exist absent of the external.Dan: The internal can exist without the external? That's a neat trick.
earnest: Hey buddy, you're the one who believes in an infinity.
Dan: Nice evasion. The infinite lacks form and therefore has no internal/external.
Laird: It wasn't an evasion.
Yes, because each of those are finite forms dependent on what they are not for their existence and meaning. They can't exist of themselves, however - which is part of their form-nature.David said that form could be either internal or external.
The internal cannot exist without the external. The word itself doesn't have any meaning other than in relation to its dualistic partner.Therefore it could be purely internal, in which case the external has no relevance: in which case infinity with form is possible.
Your bliss is entirely premature (that's not a trend with you, is it?; if so, don't tell the chicks). I don't say women are unconscious by nature - I say the feminine is and that women are to the degree they are feminine. The degree to which they are, in fact, feminine, can really only ever be a contingent empirical theory, albeit one with a high level of credible evidence.Dan: This sort of religious belief is irrational by default.
Laird: Lovely. :-) Now I'm free to say: belief that women are by nature unconscious is irrational by default. They both fit into the same category, right?
Where did I express such a belief? I stated the view that there's no rational reason to believe in its validity due to a complete dearth of evidence. How is that the same thing?Dan: There's no credible, rational evidence for it.
Laird: Oh, well, then, clearly that justifies you in your belief that it's false.
What? How does that follow? I'm open to actual evidence. There is none. That doesn't mean I'm arguing that there can't be any. Get the difference?Where did all of that open-mindedness go?
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Beyond God and Evil
I can, but I'm not going to. I'm sure you could work it for yourself with a few seconds thought.earnest_seeker wrote: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 Quinn wrote: You want me to prove that a thing cannot exist without its component parts?
By looking.earnest_seeker wrote:And how do you know that you're not seeing a mirage?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!
earnest_seeker wrote: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: 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.
Nope.
earnest_seeker wrote: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.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.
I am beginning to recall why I told you to go away last time. Like Samadhi, you don't put any effort into paying attention to what is being said and you don't put any quality thought into your responses. As always, you're looking for any excuse not to understand anything or affirm anything as true.
I really can't be bothered with you.
I don't even know why you are here. Who said that you could come back? In such a sneaky fashion too.
-
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Beyond God and Evil
brokenhead wrote:Why don't you just tell us where his usual places are, then, and we'll all simply look for him there?DQ wrote:To look for Him in unusual places is both unnecessary and misguided. It smacks of egotism and reveals an ignorance of what God is.
There is no place where He is not. You just have to open your eyes and immerse yourself in Him.
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.
You're free to believe what you like. I'll say it again, the God I worship is far too profound to require cheap stunts and parlour tricks as evidence for Him.
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.
What about faith in a cause? Or faith in an ideal? Or faith in the future? There is no rule that says that faith can only be directed to a person.
The best kind of faith is faith in the truth, even when that truth doesn't comfort our egos.
-
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Oh, how rude of me - I forgot Leyla. Here it is again with Leyla included:earnest_seeker wrote: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!
Leyla: God is impossible, or at least impossibly vague.
Ataraxia: What the fuck do you mean by "God"?
Laird
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 am
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Well call me dense but I can't. Will you oblige me?David: You want me to prove that a thing cannot exist without its component parts?
earnest: 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: I can, but I'm not going to. I'm sure you could work it for yourself with a few seconds thought.
I look at the mirage and I think that I see something real, when really I don't.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? Anyhow, the mask is off and I have a new signature.
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!
earnest: And how do you know that you're not seeing a mirage?
David: By looking.
Then please forgive me for recalling that none of the answers that you provided to that thread stood the test of challenge, and that all were undone by the reasoning of others.earnest: 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?
David: Nope.
That's a non-responsive cop-out. As far as I'm concerned, what I wrote is perfectly sensible. Let me say it in different words just so that I can be sure that it gets through to you: you write that form can be either external or internal. Well then, in the case of the infinite it can be purely internal, in which case the infinite has form, and infinity does not equate to formlessness.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.
David: I am beginning to recall why I told you to go away last time. Like Samadhi, you don't put any effort into paying attention to what is being said and you don't put any quality thought into your responses.
My basic philosophy is "You can never be sure", so I guess that you're right.David Quinn wrote:As always, you're looking for any excuse not to understand anything or affirm anything as true.
I'm sorry to hear it. We seemed to be having a decent dialogue.David Quinn wrote:I really can't be bothered with you.
Oh, and would you have welcomed me back with open arms had I announced "Hi Genius Forums, it's Laird! Remember me?" I don't have that much of a need to challenge you. It seemed that this "sneaky" approach was gentler for both of us.David Quinn wrote:I don't even know why you are here. Who said that you could come back? In such a sneaky fashion too.
Anyhow the mask is off and I have a new signature.
Laird
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Beyond God and Evil
I see your problem: you keep thinking of the infinite as a "set" with content, therefore having an internal content but with no "external" - because that would make it finite. This is the wrong way to think about it. Dualistic notions like internal/external cannot be ascribed to the infinite at all. As soon as this happens, error occurs. Only things that possess the attribute of "external" can have an "internal" attribute. One cannot begin to conceive of an internal without an accompanying external - because it's the contrast that creates the possibility of the designation of either.earnest_seeker wrote:That's a non-responsive cop-out. As far as I'm concerned, what I wrote is perfectly sensible. Let me say it in different words just so that I can be sure that it gets through to you: you write that form can be either external or internal. Well then, in the case of the infinite it can be purely internal, in which case the infinite has form, and infinity does not equate to formlessness.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Well, I was wrong then. Imagine it if you can.No, he meant ignostic. Agnostic wasn't agnostic enough. Look it up.
I mean no disrespect, but comments like this hardly rate as evidence that you're able to think straight, much less engage in serious discourse or contemplation of the deeper mysteries of existence. Also shows your bias, since you are so mocking, it means you have no intention of actually considering evidence of God.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.
Truth is a pathless land.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Hello Earnest,
You are intrinsically perfect, there is no sin, all is always forgiven and there is nothing to forgive.
The choice isn't illusory because one is free to make reality as unpleasant as one likes, and remain shut off from God. One's reality is really a matter of perception. What you perceive - that is your reality. The choices are made in a state of freedom, but we are all contained within one reality, which is God, from whom there is no alternative. God is the only choice. It's terrifying, I know. I was raised in a slightly more intelligent religion than most, and I was told that hell consisted in those who hate God being unable to escape from God, because God is the upholder of all existence, including theirs.
Don't know whether God has processes. I'm not sure the question really computes. The personhood of God is something I struggle over. I suspect that much of what people attribute to the God/Source/Creator of the universe comes from lesser entities.You have no idea about what? That God is wise without a process? Or that it's a precedent?
I mean that we view what is going on as if it were the only part of reality, but there are other things we generally don't see. Some people, for example, don't see a spiritual side to life at all. Others do, but it is quite murky. But I sometimes get glimpses. There is a pure core to all people, and our evil is not as serious as it appears to us down here on the ground with our limited vision.Please explain what you meant then, because I seem to have missed it.
But then you can't attribute it to human nature itself. So you feel like a controlled being? That you have not developed your own constraints?Sure, that means that those people are operating under different constraints.
I have doubted God but never really disbelieved in God. However, when I pondered existence and realized how shocking it is that anything can manage to exist, that it is a puzzle whose answer must lie outside the structure of my mind's abilities, I have never doubted God again. The nature of this God, however, is to be discovered.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?
True. Many people throw out God when it is really religion they don't want, or in your case, omnipotence.But I'm not arguing against God, I'm arguing against His omnipotence.
I see that as exactly what is happening.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.
There is more than one layer going on.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.
You are intrinsically perfect, there is no sin, all is always forgiven and there is nothing to forgive.
It appears that one can dally into evil deeply and for a long time. But it is ultimately going to hit a ceiling of some sort, because it doesn't align with reality. It's difficult to imagine a limited, relative entity living in a changeless state. Eventually, I think they would change toward the good, because that is reality. You can only buck it for so long. I do want to understand very evil beings better, though, because I wonder if the strong and powerful ones are quite deluded as the petty ones are?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.
The choice isn't illusory because one is free to make reality as unpleasant as one likes, and remain shut off from God. One's reality is really a matter of perception. What you perceive - that is your reality. The choices are made in a state of freedom, but we are all contained within one reality, which is God, from whom there is no alternative. God is the only choice. It's terrifying, I know. I was raised in a slightly more intelligent religion than most, and I was told that hell consisted in those who hate God being unable to escape from God, because God is the upholder of all existence, including theirs.
But you are trying to dictate how God could have made things work, without really knowing what you're made of.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.
The God you are wanting isn't good.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.
I am somewhat sad and distressed that you simply cannot grasp the ultimate goodness of refraining from the use of force against other, especially weaker entities.Oh, I see: God's a wimp.
We are free to manipulate our consciousness so as to not see God. How can there be an alternative to God when there is nothing else than God?Iolaus wrote:There is no alternative to God.
Which makes free will irrelevant then, doesn't it?
It's the best analogy.That doesn't really answer my question. Let me simplify it for you: do you believe that the universe is God's body?
I do not misunderstand you. You are looking to God for answers and you don't see that the answers lie within us all, and that understanding this IS the answer.Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not "looking to God for answers", I'm inferring his nature.
I meant that Aslan is not a tame lion.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 mean that people use platitudes like calling God perfect, when the idea hardly computes.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?
Why don't you just beat your wife or girlfriend, if she doesn't do what you want. I mean, you're strong enough, right?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?
Because there cannot be more than one "way" or attribute for an entity to be causeless and self-existent. If the universe were self-existent, then the universe is God. Whatever is causeless and self-existent is God. Whatever is less than that, derivative of that, is not God but derivative 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.
But its a crucial question. Who's in control and making games that God has no choice about? This entity has more power or equal power to God. How can that be? In that case, your God is a nice guy, but isn't God. In what does this power consist?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.
Truth is a pathless land.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Dan,
I don't have a particular for instance, but I do read and have found good books or websites regarding consciousness surviving the body and not being located only in the brain.
Also, there is good evidence for mind to mind communication, with two good examples having been given on this thread. You are mired in 18th century scientific thinking. Try reading Science and the Akashic Field.
Or the Holographic Universe.
1)The universe is the only place.
2) That is because existence is the foundation of all meaning and any other, lesser meanings are derivative.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Being of 1 a Christian?
Well, then, if the movie were true, it would constitute evidence for something, wouldn't it?So? That scene essentially portrays what you're suggesting you accept as evidence. I want to know the grounds upon which you do.
I don't have a particular for instance, but I do read and have found good books or websites regarding consciousness surviving the body and not being located only in the brain.
Also, there is good evidence for mind to mind communication, with two good examples having been given on this thread. You are mired in 18th century scientific thinking. Try reading Science and the Akashic Field.
Or the Holographic Universe.
Rather, it is I who think of David's universe as a futile place.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.
1)The universe is the only place.
2) That is because existence is the foundation of all meaning and any other, lesser meanings are derivative.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Being of 1 a Christian?
Truth is a pathless land.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
David Quinn:
Past conversations that influenced us to hold an identical experience and conversation in a shared dream? JR could recall everything I said to him in his dream that was oddly enough, identical to what I had said in my dream.
You did not experience this but I did. I will not deny this very real life experience as it happened in the real world.
I agree with what you said - however, it is clear you do not believe what you say yourself. Anything is possible - oh? But one notable exception; what you do not hold in your ideological worldview. I find it difficult to reconcile this experience with a bowl of bad chile that I ate the night before. He verified my dream verbatim, are you able to believe this?
We could both recall what I said in the dream verbatim and we both remembered the identical experience of interacting with each other and what happened. This was not an identical dream - we interacted with each other in the dream.
The difference between you and I David is I have put faith to the test and found amazing results. You have never attempted because you 'knew' it was all a bunch of hoo before you tested the results. Beside that, faith takes looking foolish in front of others, something you have a hard time with regardless all your thinking man mindfield. You are not willing to go all the way - your image of being a sage will not allow you to.
You think this dream example is all I have seen and witnessed of the nonordinary? I did not build my philosophy on sand, this is a mild example. I have seen that which transcends Newtonion physics. Do you know why I have seen so many of what can only be termed 'miraculous' David?
Because I am a believer and have been an eyewitness to the results of faith. You lack faith because you think it smacks of 'delusion' - when in truth, it is the gift that propels you into transcendant being where you actually experience, in real life, what you say at this forum.
There are talkers and there are doers.
It is so simple and so easy to experience the universe in all of its wonder - just simply do not doubt - and ask and you would receive. If you want to use the scientific method(of which you have railed agains't), then do your own testing and thinking about it. Isn't this what you champion, being your own thinker? This is how I know for a fact you have never attempted to seriously test faith, you would have seen the results.
I did not call to attention this subject, you did, and you are the one making it exclusive, can you not see this? I am simply saying the only limits you experience are the ones you apply. You have most certainly put a full stop on God's universe.
Take the words of Jesus - and put them to the acid test and find out for yourself what the dynamic of pure belief can accomplish. This is exactly what the Buddha said to do with holy scriptures. Put them to the test and see what awaits.
Past experiences allowed us to talk to each other in a dream that we both remembered the conversation verbatim?Your story sounds amazing on the surface. However, I immediately begin to think about possible past incidences which may have triggered these dreams.
You are not getting this.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.
Past conversations that influenced us to hold an identical experience and conversation in a shared dream? JR could recall everything I said to him in his dream that was oddly enough, identical to what I had said in my dream.
You did not experience this but I did. I will not deny this very real life experience as it happened in the real world.
The possibilities are endless David?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.
I agree with what you said - however, it is clear you do not believe what you say yourself. Anything is possible - oh? But one notable exception; what you do not hold in your ideological worldview. I find it difficult to reconcile this experience with a bowl of bad chile that I ate the night before. He verified my dream verbatim, are you able to believe this?
We could both recall what I said in the dream verbatim and we both remembered the identical experience of interacting with each other and what happened. This was not an identical dream - we interacted with each other in the dream.
They were not similar dreams - please pay attention. This is the only time in my life I have ever experienced this dynamic and have never read nor heard of this occuring anywhere.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.
You simply do not believe what you teach at this point.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.
-- YeshuaNothing is impossible to them that believe.
You have not because you ask not.
The difference between you and I David is I have put faith to the test and found amazing results. You have never attempted because you 'knew' it was all a bunch of hoo before you tested the results. Beside that, faith takes looking foolish in front of others, something you have a hard time with regardless all your thinking man mindfield. You are not willing to go all the way - your image of being a sage will not allow you to.
You think this dream example is all I have seen and witnessed of the nonordinary? I did not build my philosophy on sand, this is a mild example. I have seen that which transcends Newtonion physics. Do you know why I have seen so many of what can only be termed 'miraculous' David?
Because I am a believer and have been an eyewitness to the results of faith. You lack faith because you think it smacks of 'delusion' - when in truth, it is the gift that propels you into transcendant being where you actually experience, in real life, what you say at this forum.
There are talkers and there are doers.
The most appropriate tool for investigating would be you yourself conducting the experiment. Isn't this your philosophy? Why do you not believe your own philosophy?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.
It is so simple and so easy to experience the universe in all of its wonder - just simply do not doubt - and ask and you would receive. If you want to use the scientific method(of which you have railed agains't), then do your own testing and thinking about it. Isn't this what you champion, being your own thinker? This is how I know for a fact you have never attempted to seriously test faith, you would have seen the results.
They most certainly do in your eyes - once again - you do not believe in what you say yourself.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.
I guess excluding God from experiences that do not fit into what you say can and cannot happen in God's universe is okay? You are just posturing.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.
I did not call to attention this subject, you did, and you are the one making it exclusive, can you not see this? I am simply saying the only limits you experience are the ones you apply. You have most certainly put a full stop on God's universe.
Take the words of Jesus - and put them to the acid test and find out for yourself what the dynamic of pure belief can accomplish. This is exactly what the Buddha said to do with holy scriptures. Put them to the test and see what awaits.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Dan Rowden wrote:
I see your problem: you keep thinking of the infinite as a "set" with content, therefore having an internal content but with no "external" - because that would make it finite. This is the wrong way to think about it. Dualistic notions like internal/external cannot be ascribed to the infinite at all. As soon as this happens, error occurs. Only things that possess the attribute of "external" can have an "internal" attribute. One cannot begin to conceive of an internal without an accompanying external - because it's the contrast that creates the possibility of the designation of either.
Well said; this is exactly true of the infinite. The infinite is not made of the sum of its parts, is not subject to the law of identity, and yet contains all things. The infinite is not subject to being only what it can be.
The only set, in set theory that comes close is the empty set. The empty set contains and intersects all other sets and is unique amongst all other sets as there is and can be only one empty set.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Beyond God and Evil
I see you still do not get my point. God does not require anything. There simply is evidence for Him. You are the one who insists on calling that evidence "cheap stunts." I am saying this event had meaning and was not a coincidence. I am saying the deeper your faith in a personal God, the more your God participates in your life because you are inviting Him to. He participated in in my life by helping me out with a problem and underscoring His help because He chose to do so in this fashion. To me, this underscoring was a gift, a gift which I am trying to share and one of which you evidently want or need no part. And that's fine. Beyond this, I am simply not claiming anything else. Certainly nothing for you to scoff at.DQ wrote:You're free to believe what you like. I'll say it again, the God I worship is far too profound to require cheap stunts and parlour tricks as evidence for Him.
Could you be more obtuse? Faith in a cause always, and I mean always, involves having faith in people - that other people will believe in the same cause and act accordingly. Faith in the future is general and vague enough, but it certainly involves having faith that a future exists - and this means nothing more than having faith in God and in other people, that your life will continue into a future where the people on whom you rely and about whom you care will also have lives that extend into it, and that other people will not act in such a way as to take any of that away from you (like pushing the requisite nuclear buttons.)What about faith in a cause? Or faith in an ideal? Or faith in the future? There is no rule that says that faith can only be directed to a person.
Look David, I know you sincerely want to make me out to be a misguided and ignorant fool who puts my belief in parlour tricks like the doty fat twats who hold seances with their bourgeois friends, but I am simply not that person. Anahata chakra, David.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Wtz,
If you described the creative spirit involved in God consciousness, others may be able to bypass their own logical blindspots. As it stands, there isn't much tangible in it - throw some poetry or somethin. Yeah, the One Mind is all around, but to pierce Maya, one's got to up that "creative madness". As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...
If you described the creative spirit involved in God consciousness, others may be able to bypass their own logical blindspots. As it stands, there isn't much tangible in it - throw some poetry or somethin. Yeah, the One Mind is all around, but to pierce Maya, one's got to up that "creative madness". As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Just read Leyla's conception of God. + _ 0
"God is impossible. Or at least impossibly vague."
Don't be anthromorphizing, now.
"God is impossible. Or at least impossibly vague."
Don't be anthromorphizing, now.
Last edited by Steven Coyle on Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Beyond God and Evil
...I, posting all the way, descend into my madness.Steven Nietzsche wrote:As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...
Good Citizen Carl
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Beyond God and Evil
As Steven Jung looks outside that same window for his scarab...Carl G wrote:...I, posting all the way, descend into my madness.Steven Nietzsche wrote:As a hummingbird hovers outside my window...
Re: Beyond God and Evil
snake_eyes,
The Abyss at 2:21 past the noontide.
-
Bh_balance,
Steven the "Jungian/Shaman" has scoped a slew of "quasi-golden" synchronistic scarabs over the past week... They were even causally attributed 'soul's (psyches) of other persons... ("soul transmigration"). Only to be resynchronized in time at a later date (retrocognition).
The bubblegum whiz raves, "Gaia is conscious!"
The Abyss at 2:21 past the noontide.
-
Bh_balance,
Steven the "Jungian/Shaman" has scoped a slew of "quasi-golden" synchronistic scarabs over the past week... They were even causally attributed 'soul's (psyches) of other persons... ("soul transmigration"). Only to be resynchronized in time at a later date (retrocognition).
The bubblegum whiz raves, "Gaia is conscious!"
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Ah! I see the Jungian/Shaman has patience - an admirable Virtue.Steven Coyle wrote:snake_eyes,
The Abyss at 2:21 past the noontide.
-
Bh_balance,
Steven the "Jungian/Shaman" has scoped a slew of "quasi-golden" synchronistic scarabs over the past week... They were even causally attributed 'soul's (psyches) of other persons... ("soul transmigration"). Only to be resynchronized in time at a later date (retrocognition).
The bubblegum whiz raves, "Gaia is conscious!"
Re: Beyond God and Evil
Shred some scabbage with a dollop of Maya and you got Coyle Slew.
Good Citizen Carl