08 May 09
Originally posted by black beetleIf anything my "pink unicorns" example perfectly demonstrates the faults in your argument. We can be no more 'aware' that pink unicorns do not exist than we can be regarding Gods existence, yet you seem to arbitrarily give Gods existence more credence. Why? Is it because not enough people have reported being poked by invisible pink unicorns?
On the other hand, I don't claim that the products of my personal World 2 have a physical existence in the World 1; I simply said that, once they exist in my World 2, then they are real to me -the analogy "pink unicorns" is poor because we both are aware of the fact that the pink unicorns do not exist, but I cannot prove that "god" does not exist. Of co ...[text shortened]... ove based on scientific finds and evidence that "god" does not exist, please do comment😵
You also seem to be under the impression that the 'existence' of God in a theists world 2 is not subject to scientific inquiry. I disagree. If you felt something poking your leg and I told you it was an invisible pink unicorn you would not simply pronounce that pink unicorns do exist in your world 2. Even if you did initially believe it to be invisible pink unicorns you would not simply declare that it is not subject to investigation.
Or am I misunderstanding you? Were you really just trying to say "whatever I imagine is real enough in my own mind"?
08 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not give “god” a rigid existence! And your last phrase is accurate to the hilt!
If anything my "pink unicorns" example perfectly demonstrates the faults in your argument. We can be no more 'aware' that pink unicorns do not exist than we can be regarding Gods existence, yet you seem to arbitrarily give Gods existence more credence. Why? Is it because not enough people have reported being poked by invisible pink unicorns?
You also s ...[text shortened]... ? Were you really just trying to say "whatever I imagine is real enough in my own mind"?
I do not say that when I close my eyes the World 1 exists not. It exists and it’s not a delusion, however is still nothing but a phenomenon created partly due to my own understanding. This claim sounds to me without contradictions because we are incapable to perceive everything that is separated from N=3 and T=1; we are used to think/ perceive under the limitation of cause-effect, and this barrier forces us to see a flux of constant change along with a multiplicity of objects. But this is nothing but a veil, which it cannot be surpassed by means of our sense or our intellectual abilities -one needs insight and intuition in order to grasp the oneness within everything’s nature.
Once you balance between the nominal and the phenomenal worlds through the patterns of space, cause, time and change you see clearly that theism is just a form of worship that corresponds to one’s fixed forms of thought and perception. Our theist friends are sure that this worship is as necessary as breathing, but their beliefs have neither absolute validity nor they contain objective truth. So, if we simply define “god” as existence identified within all real being, then this “god” could simply exist or could exist not just the same; of course I reject the project/ invention/ idea of “god” as “creator/ redeemer” as absolute truth for it cannot be proved by reason; and I am sure that most theists bow to the idea of “god/ creator” due to practical necessity, because this invention offers peace and encouragement to their morality. Their "god" is real in their personal World 2 and this is enough for them. And, since they have all the confirmation that they need in order to believe it, they believe it. There is no way for the time being to prove by scientific facts and evidence that their belief is false.
But me in person, my friend, I need not such a thing in order to feel OK. I am just like you and everybody else but I still can rise on my own above my fixed personality, beyond “good” and “evil”, above moral distinctions, beyond all deference and all attributes, beyond all desires and non-desires. I don't have to drink and bath in Jesus' blood or worship Allah, Brahmin, Zeus and Odin blahblahblah in order to rise above; the cause and the effect, YinYang and dualism overall appear not when you know yourself.
Unfortunately I have no other words regarding this issue; I would be more than glad if Scriabin or vistesd could intervene and comment further over the situation I am trying to describe for they are quite well aware of Maya and its essence -right now and here I wish I were native English speaker, that is😵
11 May 09
Originally posted by black beetleI disagree. I find too many people are all too ready to declare that imaginary beings are impervious to scientific investigation. Why is that? Surely anything is subject to at least some scientific investigation especially when its existence has been proposed. To simply state that 'there is no way to prove' implies that the object in question has a special property that renders it immune to investigation. What is that property?
There is no way for the time being to prove by scientific facts and evidence that their belief is false.
I also strongly feel that beliefs are also subject to basic logic. ie it is not necessary to bother with scientific investigation if the belief is incoherent or illogical. Incoherent entities simply cannot be said to exist. Exactly what do we mean when we say that an invisible unicorn is pink? If I cannot explain what 'pinkness' means for an invisible entity then I am being incoherent and my proposed entity cannot exist as defined.
11 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe property is the Dynamism/ Supernatural Dynamic Existence that caused everything at will. For the philosopher the existence of “god” is not a problem or an incoherent and/ or irrational idea, because “god” is defined as existence and identifies all real being “with god”. Therefore “god” cannot be proved or non proved by reason and it can solely be postulated as a practical necessity.
I disagree. I find too many people are all too ready to declare that imaginary beings are impervious to scientific investigation. Why is that? Surely anything is subject to at least some scientific investigation especially when its existence has been proposed. To simply state that 'there is no way to prove' implies that the object in question has a specia ...[text shortened]... invisible entity then I am being incoherent and my proposed entity cannot exist as defined.
I see “god” as an Idea that goes beyond all these known popular forms of faith that they are attributed to it by the plexus of the religions. This Idea is related to the illusoriness of plurality, and it is related also to the monistic unity of everything, thus this so called “supreme being” is itself indescribable, limitless, spaceless, timeless, causeless and the source and substance of all reality. The theist philosophers even dare to state that “god” is “conscious”, “intelligent” etc, and they do it just because some of the main problems are still unanswered, ie: what is the relation between Body and Soul? Well, although I anyway dismiss the idea of “god”, the idea of “Soul” can be easily backed up by the idea of “god” -and we still cannot dismiss by scientific finds and evidence the idea of “Soul”. We still do not feel exactly in our playground when we are talking about these issues. Everything goes, that is.
But the most spectacular aspect is that, although we atheists we use to back up our opinions in full with rationalism and with scientific facts and evidence, we are still unable to prove scientifically that something that “it does not exist” it does not in fact exist! Therefore I am a bit amazed by the fact that, although the theory regarding the existence of “god” is fully exposed, the scientists are yet not ready to offer an holistic refutation of this idea. Of course I think it ‘s just not enough to offer as our primal line the claim “…oh well we anyway know that the pink unicorns do not exist”.
So I think that these Ideas, which they are causing the miscellaneous religious beliefs, are neither incoherent nor illogical. Also, the Idea of “god” is quite well defined. As a metaphysical realist I can bring up quite easily the counter-idea that “god” does not exist, however I cannot back it up with scientific finds and evidence -and this is the reason why the issue remains open.
But if you have facts, then yes my friend, I would be glad to see you sharing them with me😵
11 May 09
Originally posted by black beetleI see that your use of the word "god" differs substantially from the common theist usage.
The property is the Dynamism/ Supernatural Dynamic Existence that caused everything at will. For the philosopher the existence of “god” is not a problem or an incoherent and/ or irrational idea, because “god” is defined as existence and identifies all real being “with god”. Therefore “god” cannot be proved or non proved by reason and it can solely be postulated as a practical necessity.
Well, although I anyway dismiss the idea of “god”, the idea of “Soul” can be easily backed up by the idea of “god” -and we still cannot dismiss by scientific finds and evidence the idea of “Soul”. We still do not feel exactly in our playground when we are talking about these issues. Everything goes, that is.
And again I must note that most "soul" concepts I have come across have been incoherent and thus cannot exist. And so far any "soul" concept I have come across has also been fairly easy to dismiss with scientific finds. I suspect that your definition of "soul" is one I do not know and thus it is for all intents and purposes undefined. We cannot discuss scientifically the existence or non-existence of undefined entities.
But the most spectacular aspect is that, although we atheists we use to back up our opinions in full with rationalism and with scientific facts and evidence, we are still unable to prove scientifically that something that “it does not exist” it does not in fact exist!
I don't believe you. What do you mean by 'prove scientifically'? By my understanding of the phrase we most definitely can prove the existence or non-existence of plenty of entities.
Therefore I am a bit amazed by the fact that, although the theory regarding the existence of “god” is fully exposed, the scientists are yet not ready to offer an holistic refutation of this idea.
Maybe you are not looking very hard. I have seen plenty of refutations, the only problem being that the 'idea' in question is not well defined as every theist has a different concept of God.
So I think that these Ideas, which they are causing the miscellaneous religious beliefs, are neither incoherent nor illogical.
Where does that conclusion come from? Are you proclaiming that all religious beliefs are coherent? Surely even you see that that is not so. If not, then what are you saying?
11 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit:
I see that your use of the word "god" differs substantially from the common theist usage.
[b]Well, although I anyway dismiss the idea of “god”, the idea of “Soul” can be easily backed up by the idea of “god” -and we still cannot dismiss by scientific finds and evidence the idea of “Soul”. We still do not feel exactly in our playground when we are talki ...[text shortened]... oherent? Surely even you see that that is not so. If not, then what are you saying?
"And again I must note that most "soul" concepts I have come across have been incoherent and thus cannot exist. And so far any "soul" concept I have come across has also been fairly easy to dismiss with scientific finds. I suspect that your definition of "soul" is one I do not know and thus it is for all intents and purposes undefined. We cannot discuss scientifically the existence or non-existence of undefined entities."
There are philosophers who, like you, they claim that although the products of the World 3 exist because they are products of the World 2, the products of the World 3 themselves are just abstract thoughts based on the process of the human World 2. But my thesis is that, although the World 3 is a product of the World 2, it has an inner plexus that is partly autonomous, ie just as we notice that it happens at the science of Math. So we monitor objects that they belong at the same time to the Worlds 1 and 3, and objects that they belong at the same time to the Worlds 2 and 3. A theory that is not yet expressed by a scientist belongs to the World 3; when it will be expressed it will belong at the same time to the Worlds 2 and 3, and when it will be written down it will belong too to the World 1 -but right now it presses the World 2 of the scientist. Also we may assume that this theory belongs too to the World 1 even before it is written down by the scientist once it is primary conceived, because the mental operations of the World 2 are probably related with specific procedures of the brain of the scientist at the World 1. Well, the problem regarding the relation Body-Soul has to do with the possibility of the existence of a connection between the mental operations of the World 2 with the specific procedures of the brain at the World 1.
Since our theories, which they all belong to the World 3, they affect the World 1 through the World 2, then the World 1 cannot be a closed system. Therefore the World 2 and the World 1 are in a status of a mutual affection, as ie it happens when we monitor that during reading a book there are specific procedures of our brain that they affect our World 2.
Also, when the scientist I mentioned earlier tries to bring up a new theory, then his World 2 affects his brain and at the same time affects the World 1. Therefore, the existence of the World 3 and the possibility we have to grasp objects of the World 3 by means of the World 2, offers vital explanations regarding the human consciousness.
Since the human World 2 is a product of the World 3 and at the same time the World 3 is a product of the human World 1, the Human is a product of his civilization -and “Soul” (or BodySoul) is the interface required in order to enable the Human to proceed.
11 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit:
I see that your use of the word "god" differs substantially from the common theist usage.
[b]Well, although I anyway dismiss the idea of “god”, the idea of “Soul” can be easily backed up by the idea of “god” -and we still cannot dismiss by scientific finds and evidence the idea of “Soul”. We still do not feel exactly in our playground when we are talki ...[text shortened]... oherent? Surely even you see that that is not so. If not, then what are you saying?
"I don't believe you. What do you mean by 'prove scientifically'? By my understanding of the phrase we most definitely can prove the existence or non-existence of plenty of entities."
I mean that we still are unable to prove scientifically that "god" does not exist.
11 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit:
I see that your use of the word "god" differs substantially from the common theist usage.
[b]Well, although I anyway dismiss the idea of “god”, the idea of “Soul” can be easily backed up by the idea of “god” -and we still cannot dismiss by scientific finds and evidence the idea of “Soul”. We still do not feel exactly in our playground when we are talki ...[text shortened]... oherent? Surely even you see that that is not so. If not, then what are you saying?
"Where does that conclusion come from? Are you proclaiming that all religious beliefs are coherent? Surely even you see that that is not so. If not, then what are you saying?"
I simply said that the miscellaneous religious doctrines are merely products of Theology, therefore these doctrines are in fact incoherent and illogical although the philosophical quality regarding the nature of this Idea is high and stable; I also said that we are still waiting for an holistic scientific approach regarding the issue of the existence/ non existence of "god".
11 May 09
Originally posted by black beetleThat is simply because "god" is not defined to be an existent entity so there is no need to even try to prove that he exists. He doesn't exist by definition.
I mean that we still are unable to prove scientifically that "god" does not exist.
I am not saying that no god exists but rather that by not specifically saying what 'god' you are talking about you must be referring to either a general theistic concept - which is so broad and varied that it is impossible for all versions to simultaneously exist, or you could be referring to your previously mentioned 'god' concept in which all existence is 'god' in which case he necessarily exists by definition and there is no need to disprove it.
As for specific definitions of 'god' that correspond to actual beliefs, I have no doubt that the vast majority of them have been proven scientifically (to my satisfaction) to not exist. But then that depends on what you mean by 'proof'.
11 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow's this for a broad theistic concept:
That is simply because "god" is not defined to be an existent entity so there is no need to even try to prove that he exists. He doesn't exist by definition.
I am not saying that no god exists but rather that by not specifically saying what 'god' you are talking about you must be referring to either a general theistic concept - which is so broad and vari ...[text shortened]... o my satisfaction) to not exist. But then that depends on what you mean by 'proof'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof
?
11 May 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageExactly, Bosse; this is the Western view of the concept, which along with the Eastern tradition (Ein/ Ein Sof stands well as a reflection of Brahmin/ Atman) it demonstrates perfectly the universal idea of a "Creative Power"/ "Limitless Light"/ "god" that created through its manifest/ divine presence the known and unknown physical and metaphysical universe.
How's this for a broad theistic concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof
?
11 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am talking of the Western and Eastern theistic concept alike as described by both QBLH and Eastern esoteric philosophers.
That is simply because "god" is not defined to be an existent entity so there is no need to even try to prove that he exists. He doesn't exist by definition.
I am not saying that no god exists but rather that by not specifically saying what 'god' you are talking about you must be referring to either a general theistic concept - which is so broad and vari ...[text shortened]... o my satisfaction) to not exist. But then that depends on what you mean by 'proof'.
18 May 09
Ask God for an experience of direct knowledge of God. "You have not because you ask not."
A Prayer for Direct Knowledge of God:
"Lord Jesus, before this week ends I ask you to give me one concrete experience of direct knowledge of God. I allow you to do what you have to do God. I give you permission to touch my being in any way you need to. I only ask that you would be faithful to let me experience one concrete direct knowing of you this week. Thankyou God. Amen. "
"And a further word God. I do not ask merely out of curiosity. I am willing to be changed by you. I am willing to establish a long term relationship with God. On this basis God, I ask you to place me in the right circumstances. Point me, Lord, in the right direction. Amen"