Brian,
DQ: Obviously, God is clearly not nothing whatsoever, as we can see from the world around us. So we can dismiss that possibility altogether. But yet, at the same time, He is not something which can be said to exist. Only finite things - i.e. things with boundaries that enable them to be distinguished from other things - are capable of "existence". God, the totality, doesn't posses this capacity, by definition.
BT: Why are only finite things with boundaries capable of existence.
Because existence can only rise through contrast. For example, a black bird on a white canvas exists only by virtue of the contrast between it and the canvass. A black bird on a black canvas would disappear entirely. It would literally cease to exist. This is a rather simple analogy, but I'm sure you get the point.
Now, since God is the totality of all there is, there is nothing, by definition, which is external to Him. There is nothing
there to create the contrast which would give Him existence. And so I can say, with the utmost conviction, that God doesn't really exist. Again, this is not to say that God is nothing whatsoever, for that is not true either.
God is infinite only if the totality of all that exists is infinite. Just curious: how do you know, especially with your limited definition/criteria of existence, that God is indeed infinite? The boundary of God would be the line that separates the real from the unreal.
God is necessarily infinite by virtue of the fact that He is the totality of all there is. Thus, by definition, there cannot be a boundary that marks where God ends and something else begins.
DQ: This is why the Buddha sometimes used to refer to Reality as being "unborn".
BT: I think he means that it did not come into being.
That's right. It never came into existence. It is "unborn and uncreate", as the Buddha used to say. And because it has never come into existence, it can never go out of existence either. It is timeless, indestructible, beyond life and death.
DQ: Yes, things do have a certain kind of existence, but not the kind that is normally imagined by people.
DQ: God alone is real, everything else is unreal. This is the magnificent truth that the omniscient closet-dweller understands.
BT: By definition, that which is unreal does not exist. You contradict yourself unless by "things" you meant to include God.
Or there is another way - namely, affirming the obvious truth that all things lack any kind of ultimate existence. God Himself is not a "thing", and thus the limitations of being finite and in existence don't apply to Him.
DQ: God makes me.
BT: have to assume, despite what it seems like, that you're again being deadly serious. What is the mechanism for the totality of all that exists for influencing your behavior?
The mechanism is my causes, which are countless in number as they stretch out into the rest of Nature and lose themselves in the beginningless past.
DQ: No, not at all. The manifestations and variations that we see all around us are part of the oneness of Reality. The "empty set" of God is literally the world and all its infinite diversity.
BT: What do you mean by diversity? According to you an infinite thing cannot be defined.
I don't know what you mean. The definition of "infinite" is very specific - it means not finite, not possessing a beginning/end.
As for "diversity", I was using the common meaning.
Each and every thing in existence is unique in its own form and structure - and yet, at the same time, each of these unique structures has been created by the process of cause and effect, a process which is the same everywhere, eternal, unchanging, and relentlessly creative.
BT: If you think you're unreal, then what prevents you from killing yourself and/or everyone else? Why preserve life if it's unreal?
DQ: Why destroy it?
BT: Because God makes you.
Very good, you're catching on. We'll make a sage out of you in no time.
Yes, we do whatever God makes us do. Ultimately, we have no say in the matter ..... unless, of course, God makes us have a say in it. But even then, we don't really have say in it.
I just don't see believing that everybody is an illusion as a very healthy reality to live in. There is nothing whatsoever to stop you from injuring an illusion.
Well, I am strongly commited to the goal of preserving wisdom in the world. It's what I have chosen as the most important thing in life, and all my other values stem from this. Thus, I have a strong motivation not to destroy life, for I recognize that without life there can be no wisdom.
Truth is that while my exterior is an illusion, where what you see of my exterior is just these words, the true me is 100% real. (Or just "real" if you don't believe the reality of something can vary between 0 and 100%.)
I'm afraid your interior is just as much an illusion as your exterior is. The only thing real about you is your God-nature and that can't be discerned, either in your inner life or your external environment, without deep knowledge and insight. When a person does manage to acquire this knowledge and insight, he can see God's nature in everything. Until then, it remains invisible.
BT: If so and if our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature, then God is an illusion. Do you believe God is an illusion?
DQ: No. I realize that God is neither illusory, nor real.
BT: Then we are neither illusory nor real since our fundamental nature is the same as God's fundamental nature.
That's right, yes.
Then why did you say this:
Quote:
God alone is real, everything else is unreal.
It's just a different way of pointing to the same truth. The reason why we are neither illusory nor real is because we are entirely composed of God, who is Himself neither real nor illusory.
In other words, the perception that things are discrete and objectively real, with sharp boundaries, is an illusion. In reality, things have no beginning or end. Nature is a seamless continuum and our own non-existence (in an ultimate sense) is a part of that.
I'd say that we are included in "everything else" for you and I are clearly not the totality of all that exists. How can our fundamental nature be the same as God's if we are unreal and God is real?
As I say, we have no beginning or end. That is why our finite existence is unreal, and why our real nature is nothing other than the infinite nature of God.
Anyway, you first say God alone is real and then you say God is neither illusory *nor real*. Care to explain your contradiction?
As mentioned above, they are different ways of pointing to the same fundamental fact of Nature. The statement that God is neither real nor illusory is a more advanced truth, and really only suitable for those who are experienced enough in philosophic thinking to process it properly.
The other statement - "God alone is real, everything else is illusory" - is more for beginners. It helps them conceptualize the Totality correctly and gives them a solid basis for making further intellectual progress. But you shouldn't think that the two statements contradict each other. Properly understood, they don't.
DQ: The evidence I have provided has been in the form of tight logical reasoning. What do you offer?
BT: Evidence for what? That God is the only real thing yet also not real? And then somewhere else, that God is neither real nor unreal? Is this what "logical reasoning" is?
You haven't grasped the reasoning yet, but I assure you it is very tight.
DQ: For example, I have shown that any evidence which seems to indicate that the Totality has a "purpose" is necessarily unreliable, as it will always be impossible to determine that this evidence does indeed apply to the Totality and not just to some limited realm within the Totality.
BT: Why are some people so dependent on evidence? Don't you know that there are true statements out there that are unprovable?
If they are not provable, then how do you know they are true? Why even believe in them?
How do you distinguish yourself from the fundamentalist Christian who essentially justifies his beliefs in the same way?
DQ: You might stumble upon some evidence, for example, which suggests that the observeable universe is deliberately heading towards some kind of final outcome, but how do you know that this applies to the Totality itself, and not just to this tiny, little bubble of space-time that we call the "observable universe"? There is no way of knowing. This is not to mention the possibility that you may well be hallucinating this evidence in the first place.
BT: This is insignificant once you understand the nature of God. I am omniscient though I don't know anything about specifics. LOL
You are being evasive. Please address my point.
DQ: No, the belief that the Totality has some kind of purpose is nothing more than an article of blind faith.
BT: Actually, if God is making you do something, then you have a purpose. There's no higher purpose than serving God.
You and I might have a purpose, but God doesn't.
DQ: It's a logical point. In order for an entity to formulate some kind of purpose, it needs to experience some sort of lack. It needs to feel incomplete in some way. And so I ask, how can the Totality possibly experience lack or incompleteness?
BT: No. In order for an entity *you understand*, it must experience some kind of lack to have purpose. Have you demonstrated that all entities require lack to have purpose?
That is literally what having a purpose is - to rectify the perception that something is lacking or incomplete. For example, when an athlete devotes his life towards winning an Olympic Gold medal, it's because he feels incomplete and dissatisfied without it. You can't have one without the other. They are two sides of the same coin.
In any case, I still don't understand why you have arbitrarily decided to believe that the Totality has a purpose. You've already ruled out the possibility of evidence for it (and rightly so), so why make that choice?
Is it just for amusement or something?
You can't use any entities you are familiar with as an *analogy* because God is not comparable to any entity. Your analogy fails.
And yet here you are, happily comparing God to a living being that has will and purpose.
It's ironical, but I am actually doing what you suggest here. I am stripping away from God all comparisons to other things - including that of having existence, non-existence, reality, illusoriness, will, purpose etc. And yet all throughout this discussion you have been squealing in protest at this stripping away, simply because you want to hang onto your image of God resembling a conscious being.
-