A Red Chair, a Purple Couch, and Nothingness: Thoughts on the Problem of God

[Chevalier Violet]

I'm not talking about others understanding you, but you listening to and understanding others. You don't have any idea what others experience unless you ask and carefully listen to the answers they give. Without that, you really have no means of assessing whether they lack some experience you've had, and assuming they do because they don't use the word "God" in desceibing it frankly makes any discussion pointless and impossible.

You didn't include my link in my post when you pasted it over here, btw.

I'm not sure what I said that you're referring to.

Also, how do I include this link? There are so many bells and whistles on this program, I don't really know how to ring or blow them.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

The main difference between atheism and theism is the latter is much more evangelistic, take away that, and there would not be near as many problems in the social acceptance category.

There are a few other main differences I can think of! I have to say, present company excluded, I sure have met some aggressive atheists on this board. Likewise, many, many theists are non-evangelical. (I get along better with those less pushy types, loving harmony as much as I do). That said, I agree with you in general except for the word "main."

 

[doppelganger]

I'm referring to your assumption that I and others don't have similar raw spiritual experiences as you, which is unwarranted unless you are willing to ask and humbly listen to the responses.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I'm referring to your assumption that I and others don't have similar raw spiritual experiences as you, which is unwarranted unless you are willing to ask and humbly listen to the responses.

Where do you assume I have made this assumption? Oh - I think I understand. Probably in the other thread.

Your theory that atheists and theists may have the same experience but call it different by names is coherent and is plausible, particularly from a non-theist point of view.

To put it in the language of the metaphor, you would argue that everybody looking in the room sees the same thing but calls it different things. And then hubris and poor communication skills create miscommunication. Am I summarizing your theory correctly? I think that's a pretty interesting theory - it is sort of a new take on this that I haven't thought of before - especially considering how different "purple couches" are from "red chairs."

And I know you've had some interesting run-ins with visions as such. I definitely don't mean to dismiss them out of hand.

Getting back to my "unwarranted assumption" - everyone I know who has had a vision of God, it was similar in some ways to a revelation. More specifically, for everyone I can think of, part of the vision was a realization that "whatever this is, this is what people call God." During my first vision of God, I saw some ball of light introduce itself as "God." It introduced itself. I think you can agree, that is kind of hard to miss. Even my later pantheistic and panentheistic and Greek myths visions had a similar "self-revelatory" quality - some part of the mind recognized this quite naturally as a vision of God.

I have never heard of anybody who had a vision of God but only realized it later - or who had an experience anything like any of mine. In my experience and the experience of everyone I have ever spoken to, these visions are immediately self-evident and labeled.

So I understand that, from your point of view, it probably doesn't seem very humble of me to say, "well if you're not sure, then we have different experiences." This would be especially so, if you subscribe to the theory above, that everyone perceives the same thing but calls it different names.

Still, I have never heard of anybody, ever, needing to ask me if a vision of a divine flight of angels, with Jesus Christ sitting on a throne counted as a vision of God. Right? Even the less obvious ones, most people who have such experiences can label them immediately.

That's why, the moment I see someone begin to ask me what I mean, I just say, that's a no. No doubt from a non-theist point of view, that seems unfair. Maybe it is.

In any case, the poll from the previous thread is a self-report poll. The question isn't "have you had some vision that CV defines as a vision of God." My question is "have you had some vision that YOU define as a vision of God." For most people, if they need to parse semantics, the answer is no. It's a little crude as far as a research method goes, but I think it's more effective than tamely asking sarcastic atheists if they would call listening to their nirvana CD last night - while high - a vision of God.

If you have a better way to poll for this, I'm listening.

You, on the other hand, are like me and a philosopher of science with a specialty in the arcane, unholy field of semiotics. That is the most practical branch of philosophy of them all: for hundreds of years, it's been curing insomnia. To you, I will grant exception to the rule above because even if every day for the past seven years you'd been talking to a host of holy angels on your left shoulder, you would still parse semantics with me just because you love it. Or like you like watching me squirm or both

You're right, though: you're pointing out some of my assumptions - I'm not saying I don't stand by them. I believe they are not made out of arrogance or unwillingness to listen but for concrete reasons, even if those reasons may not be immediately evident to you. But still, I appreciate that.

I openly invite you to test my assumptions on this board. Maybe get together a panel of theists of every type to judge whether some described experience is a vision of God. Then, with your test group, get together all the non-theists who want to parse semantics, and all their pot and Nirvana CDs. Have them describe their experiences to the representative panel of theists. I would be willing to bet that the theists will reject pretty much every experience. I have never heard of anybody who saw Jesus Christ and all the saviors and wasn't sure it was a vision of God. I have never met anyone who perceived a pantheistic vision of God, and wasn't immediately sure it was a vision of God.

In fact, can you explain to me how it would be possible to have a vision of God and not know what it is? I'm having a hard time imagining how that could happen right now. If you can help, that would be great.

Love,
CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Doppelganger - what's really interesting about this stuff is that although people see very different things in visions of God, they are very distinct and recognizable experiences.

From everything I have ever heard they are always:

self-evident
immediately recognizable
possible in a waking state
not drug induced
not perceived with the five senses
similar to a revelation or understanding

The research on this stuff has barely been done. That makes the polls that I run and hoops I have people jump through on here - though a major pain in my behind because people here can be very prickly - fascinating and cutting edge. To me, that is cool.

Love,
CV

 

[alpha&omega]

read about einstiens special theory of relitivity,stephen hawkings a bfief history of time,about hermes trismagistus,gnostics,and most of all buhdism,god is a calling not ritual and worship,energy is all,neg and pos and the chaos inbetween,black holes are strange and humanity is stranger,humanity created the jesus myth based on polotics,he was an avatar just like muhamad and buhda,all one face divided by culture,thor is zues,zues is vishnu,angels like gabriel are like loki to thor,thoth is the same as st peter ect!it all comes down to right and wrong no religion is evil because it inspires,all different facets on the same gem evoled diferently,muhamid is arab jesus is jewish,goes back to sarah and abraham over political control,no faith is bad until its used as a diveder to make diferances more aperant,how many thinkers where burnt by the catholics when they said the world wasnt the center of the universe?religion is a political term,im not religous im spiritual,the creator,belinose,zues,thoth,jesus and muhamid are all one and the same culturaly different,morocans eat horses i cant cause there canadians pets,taboo here but acepted there,i eat pork and shellfish and beef,hindus dont eat beef cause its sacred and jews cause its not kosher,but its all out of respect,ritual and worship formed by evolving races of man,theres one true god and thats the choice of doing whats right,mithra the great wheel in the sky,the four winds,lucifer the light bringer,baal,yahew,race wars pupetuated by men condoning genicide to prove faith,the bible before constintines selected gosphels aimed at uniting an empire is only a tool to pacify,paul was an outcast,a liar and a perversion of the early church,james the essenes maybe,qumran,jhon the baptist are changed,revised,nag hamadi texts,dead sea scrolls are proof of the lies,gnosis is greek for knowledge,the snake gave eve the ceriosity by tasting the fruit,paridise is nervana atainable through enlightment,all material gone,we are in hell,matter,pure thought,pure actions and help others before yourself is all ya gotta do!the dali lama is gonna meet jesus if theres a heaven!if you look at the metaphisical parts of religion they all have the same message at thier roots,peace,solice and love,its mans egotism that corupts,true faith isnt goin to church its doin right lol,thats all i got on this matter!

 

[3.14]

if people look into the room they do not all see it from the same place , one can look from a high placed window and see the top side of a red chair, or one can look from a low placed window and see the underside of a purple couch,
one would assume that there is a compleet red chair in the room but is unable to tell for sure,
so continues to think there is a red chair there and when he looks though the low placed window all he will see is a red chair,

now if a person that hasn't looked though the window is told there is a red chair there and looks in even if there is something els he will still adapt his views to match a red chair, like if he sees a sofa the sofa will be red or if he sees a purple thing he will think it is the chair

the only impartial judge is one who hasn't looked though the window but rammed down a wall in search of the truth, but because the walls are thick only a few people dare to ram the wall, those that do sometimes find splinters of truth, but most of the time all the find is cold hard reality

 

[Chevalier Violet]

read about einstiens special theory of relitivity,stephen hawkings a bfief history of time,about hermes trismagistus,gnostics,and most of all buhdism,god is a calling not ritual and worship,energy is all,neg and pos and the chaos inbetween,black holes are strange and humanity is stranger,humanity created the jesus myth based on polotics,he was an avatar just like muhamad and buhda,all one face divided by culture,thor is zues,zues is vishnu,angels like gabriel are like loki to thor,thoth is the same as st peter ect!it all comes down to right and wrong no religion is evil because it inspires,all different facets on the same gem evoled diferently,muhamid is arab jesus is jewish,goes back to sarah and abraham over political control,no faith is bad until its used as a diveder to make diferances more aperant,how many thinkers where burnt by the catholics when they said the world wasnt the center of the universe?religion is a political term,im not religous im spiritual,the creator,belinose,zues,thoth,jesus and muhamid are all one and the same culturaly different,morocans eat horses i cant cause there canadians pets,taboo here but acepted there,i eat pork and shellfish and beef,hindus dont eat beef cause its sacred and jews cause its not kosher,but its all out of respect,ritual and worship formed by evolving races of man,theres one true god and thats the choice of doing whats right,mithra the great wheel in the sky,the four winds,lucifer the light bringer,baal,yahew,race wars pupetuated by men condoning genicide to prove faith,the bible before constintines selected gosphels aimed at uniting an empire is only a tool to pacify,paul was an outcast,a liar and a perversion of the early church,james the essenes maybe,qumran,jhon the baptist are changed,revised,nag hamadi texts,dead sea scrolls are proof of the lies,gnosis is greek for knowledge,the snake gave eve the ceriosity by tasting the fruit,paridise is nervana atainable through enlightment,all material gone,we are in hell,matter,pure thought,pure actions and help others before yourself is all ya gotta do!the dali lama is gonna meet jesus if theres a heaven!if you look at the metaphisical parts of religion they all have the same message at thier roots,peace,solice and love,its mans egotism that corupts,true faith isnt goin to church its doin right lol,thats all i got on this matter!

I am visually unable to read posts that don't use a single period. I'm sorry. (I'm not trying to be rude)

if people look into the room they do not all see it from the same place , one can look from a high placed window and see the top side of a red chair, or one can look from a low placed window and see the underside of a purple couch,
one would assume that there is a compleet red chair in the room but is unable to tell for sure,
so continues to think there is a red chair there and when he looks though the low placed window all he will see is a red chair,

That's an interesting point that the metaphor captures - I hadn't noticed that before, and you're right. Different people see different aspects of even the same experiences different ways - I have heard many different types of reports of pantheism, for instance. It is exactly like knowing one complex thing from many angles.

now if a person that hasn't looked though the window is told there is a red chair there and looks in even if there is something els he will still adapt his views to match a red chair, like if he sees a sofa the sofa will be red or if he sees a purple thing he will think it is the chair

Ditto, this is also another aspect of religious experience one can see in the metaphor, again that I hadn't seen before. Perhaps a good way to word this is if someone is told there is a red chair which is actually maroon or pink, and the person adjusts their view. I believe expectations are a very important part of religious experience (though probably in a different way than many non-theists, who would believe, quite plausibly of course, that these experiences are almost entirely shaped by wishful thinking and expectations).

the only impartial judge is one who hasn't looked though the window but rammed down a wall in search of the truth, but because the walls are thick only a few people dare to ram the wall, those that do sometimes find splinters of truth, but most of the time all the find is cold hard reality

I have to disagree because I don't think there are any impartial judges in the world, except very young children perhaps. Everybody who has lived enough to have experience and develop language has either experienced this or hasn't.

I'm not sure where you're going with this ram down the wall business, however. There I'm just completely lost lol

 

[fantome profane]

I have never met anyone who perceived a pantheistic vision of God, and wasn't immediately sure it was a vision of God.

Hi, how’s it goin. Nice to meet you!

Now you have.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Hi, how’s it goin. Nice to meet you!

Now you have.

Now that's a linguistic divide

 

[logician]

I think many people are atheists because they had their perception overty "expanded" many times along the way. There are no shortages of people pointing out the red chair and purple chair, but very few saying the emporer has no clothes.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I think many people are atheists because they had their perception overty "expanded" many times along the way. There are no shortages of people pointing out the red chair and purple chair, but very few saying the emporer has no clothes.

The argument I am making here is that everybody, from their own point of view, is pointing out the nudity of the emperor - non-theists as well as theists. If you look in the room and see nothing, it is neither surprising nor superior to anyone else to claim that there is nothing in the room. It takes just as much skepticism for a Karla who sees nothing to say there is nothing, as a Bridgette who sees a red chair to claim there is a red chair.

It seems to me that most non-theists and most theists bring an equal amount of skepticism toward their own experiences - that is, practically no skepticism at all. Instead, everyone claims to be part of the only group who sees that "the emperor has no clothes."

Toward everyone else's experiences, of course, every group has nothing but skepticism. Abundant, seemingly infinite skepticism.

And as for their being "very few" atheists, I have never found a shortage in my life - I am glad that part of me is well supported. Depends where you're from, I suppose. Sorry to hear you have found so few.

CV

PS You're right that atheists are atheists because of an expansion of their perception. Many theists arrived at theism the same way. Like I say to everybody, the only solution to the "problem of God" is a continuing expansion of those perceptions. Aka, learn, experience, grow for a lifetime. If enough people start doing that, we can perhaps find a real solution.

 

[Sententia]

Right, those who only pretend to see "a red chair" were not intended to be included in this number of over a billion. I mean this to be a number of people who really perceive a deity. Perhaps we can quibble over numbers, I'm sure we can come up with several different plausible estimates. I think a billion is pretty reasonable, and I could easily have said more. If you want to put this number in hundred millions, I would perhaps agree to that depending on your rationale.

Please keep in mind, I am not talking about "motions." This is a perception, white or black, "yes or no did you see the chair in that room."

CV

I read your post in its entirety... It is fairly innocuous but ultimately fallacious... Heres why I think so.

Supposing that people are actually seeing something substantive supernatural as justification to try and see for yourself is dishonest with both yourself and them. It feeds them and encourages them. But more importantly your reasoning is not scientific. Lots of people see ufos, ghosts, demons, satan and spirits. These charlatons, the good ones, make millions touring our country and spreading their bunkish snake oil brand of I see dead people. Look at roswell. Its either a UFO from another planet that crashed and the governement for the first time ever managed to clean it up and keep it a secret quite flawlessly or it was a weather ballon with some top secret surveillance equipment... Hmmm... Lets see. Aliens... or Classified equipment... I dunno... I mean no evidence for aliens... But it could still be them right?

These people who claim to talk to god and claim god talks to them are sincerly straight faced lying and you cant suppose for a moment their being honest or be taken in by their scam. Sure they probably do a lot of good and perform lots of selfish acts and people will always wonder what drives them. They don't have to do this or go this far... Well when your forced to live your lie daily the guilt will cause you to be selfless motivated helpful person. I don't know if god exists or does not. I do know however that these people are liars. They have no evidence, no proof and no insights into life. The having nothing substantial except a warm smile, an open hand and need to help you... how can you fault that?

I mean look even how you describe your own theory... Like the clearing of a microscopic clot in the your brain and boom God might exist.

My contention is there is no qualification, no work needed, no particular education level needed to be a priest or to have a religious experience. It could happen to anyone... The only requirement for the really good ones is a flawless ability to lie. The bad ones get caught and deemed false or just move on to something else...

Basically if it sounds to good to be true it probale isn't... And how nice would it be to have an exception. To be born into this faith, to know this god, to know for certain you are right because despite no evidence of any kind there is Pearl and Pearl talks to god and god has told Pearl my religion is true. Wow... what great time to be alive and here I sit at the cusp of the messiahs return.

What is wrong with Neuroscience? Whats wrong with unravelling really what we are and what we are limited by... All the new discoveries of the brain.. A wand you can use to literally shut people up. They cant talk because an invisible magnetic field you cant see just shut them up. Presto... Whose to say there are not naturally occuring magnetic fields and chemicals that allow true inspiration or religious transcendent experiences?

There is a ton of work to be done and lots of research. Why not compete for the M prize... Wouldnt that be something worth dedicating your life too... Sure god would have liked it more if you looked out for you and were the best christian you can be and you dedicated your life to fighting for christians and against naysayers... but why not be a passive christian and an active scientist. Imagine if you got the M prize and now every human being on the planet have a bumped up life expectancy of even 5 years. For a million people that 5 million years and the M prize would probably affect billions.

I dunno... What you are asking people to do is to put yourself in their family raised indoctrinated mindset and try to really understand their religion and ignore any rational thought you have ever had... Like Mesmer... He was quite the sensation you know..

I think there can be more productive uses of our time. And yes not everyone is cut out for science... But I think you see my point. You may not agree with me. Most wont actually... Im pretty intolerant of claims of superstition and people get offended but my house really is haunted, I really can talk to god... I SAW A UFO. Dont question my religion, I see were gonna have a problem her.... etc etc... People have hit me for telling them their a liar... And I asked them... Did god tell you to hit me? Hit me again. I walked away. (It was a slap by a girl... No I wasnt injured but seriously... They have to hit me? Where does jesus teach if you disagree with someone hit them...) I have been asked to leave a house for talking about evolution...

Oh so yeah... your argument also presupposes that seeing things the way they see them would be a good thing... From my experience its not.

People would rather ignore you, push you away, kick you out, beat you down than deal with the possibility that their wrong.

 

[blackout]

I don't know about anyone else,
but I see the purple couch.
All plush and velvety.
And if the emperor is good looking?
I see him lounging on the purple couch...
in his new clothes. :flirt:

 

[blackout]

Where do you assume I have made this assumption? Oh - I think I understand. Probably in the other thread.

Your theory that atheists and theists may have the same experience but call it different by names is coherent and is plausible, particularly from a non-theist point of view.

To put it in the language of the metaphor, you would argue that everybody looking in the room sees the same thing but calls it different things. And then hubris and poor communication skills create miscommunication. Am I summarizing your theory correctly? I think that's a pretty interesting theory - it is sort of a new take on this that I haven't thought of before - especially considering how different "purple couches" are from "red chairs."

And I know you've had some interesting run-ins with visions as such. I definitely don't mean to dismiss them out of hand.

Getting back to my "unwarranted assumption" - everyone I know who has had a vision of God, it was similar in some ways to a revelation. More specifically, for everyone I can think of, part of the vision was a realization that "whatever this is, this is what people call God." During my first vision of God, I saw some ball of light introduce itself as "God." It introduced itself. I think you can agree, that is kind of hard to miss. Even my later pantheistic and panentheistic and Greek myths visions had a similar "self-revelatory" quality - some part of the mind recognized this quite naturally as a vision of God.

I have never heard of anybody who had a vision of God but only realized it later - or who had an experience anything like any of mine. In my experience and the experience of everyone I have ever spoken to, these visions are immediately self-evident and labeled.

So I understand that, from your point of view, it probably doesn't seem very humble of me to say, "well if you're not sure, then we have different experiences." This would be especially so, if you subscribe to the theory above, that everyone perceives the same thing but calls it different names.

Still, I have never heard of anybody, ever, needing to ask me if a vision of a divine flight of angels, with Jesus Christ sitting on a throne counted as a vision of God. Right? Even the less obvious ones, most people who have such experiences can label them immediately.

That's why, the moment I see someone begin to ask me what I mean, I just say, that's a no. No doubt from a non-theist point of view, that seems unfair. Maybe it is.

In any case, the poll from the previous thread is a self-report poll. The question isn't "have you had some vision that CV defines as a vision of God." My question is "have you had some vision that YOU define as a vision of God." For most people, if they need to parse semantics, the answer is no. It's a little crude as far as a research method goes, but I think it's more effective than tamely asking sarcastic atheists if they would call listening to their nirvana CD last night - while high - a vision of God.

If you have a better way to poll for this, I'm listening.

You, on the other hand, are like me and a philosopher of science with a specialty in the arcane, unholy field of semiotics. That is the most practical branch of philosophy of them all: for hundreds of years, it's been curing insomnia. To you, I will grant exception to the rule above because even if every day for the past seven years you'd been talking to a host of holy angels on your left shoulder, you would still parse semantics with me just because you love it. Or like you like watching me squirm or both

You're right, though: you're pointing out some of my assumptions - I'm not saying I don't stand by them. I believe they are not made out of arrogance or unwillingness to listen but for concrete reasons, even if those reasons may not be immediately evident to you. But still, I appreciate that.

I openly invite you to test my assumptions on this board. Maybe get together a panel of theists of every type to judge whether some described experience is a vision of God. Then, with your test group, get together all the non-theists who want to parse semantics, and all their pot and Nirvana CDs. Have them describe their experiences to the representative panel of theists. I would be willing to bet that the theists will reject pretty much every experience. I have never heard of anybody who saw Jesus Christ and all the saviors and wasn't sure it was a vision of God. I have never met anyone who perceived a pantheistic vision of God, and wasn't immediately sure it was a vision of God.

In fact, can you explain to me how it would be possible to have a vision of God and not know what it is? I'm having a hard time imagining how that could happen right now. If you can help, that would be great.

Love,
CV

CV,

I think people label and define their experiences IN TERMS
that define their current understanding of reality.

I also think that people's realities also BECOME... or Acutalize ...
according to their particular way of thinking/seeing/believing.

I think the reason I posted my story in the other thread
was because the line between theism & atheism can be so thin...
as to be merely a choice of a WAY OF THINKING/labeling...
a choice between Violet or Orange if you will,
even after experiencing a full blown epiphony and paradigm shift.

I actually can see how another person
could have had a completely similar experience to my own
and come to a completely different conclusion about it in the end.

If our realities do in fact ACTUALIZE and transform
in direct response to our patterns of thought/faith/belief
I can see how one person might attribute this to God,
and another to Natural Science.

As I believe the Universe/Multiverse (everything) itself IS God
I can see how it might easily translate as a moot point to a scientific type/mind/thinker.
Even my experience that the UniVerse is Sentient & Consciously Interactive,
could be explained in scientific terms I am sure.

I thrive in the realm of Magic.
Magical terms define my reality.
Yet how many magic(k)ians/sorcerers/witches
are both non thiest and theist (and of so many varieties).
Yet we all know Magic(k).

I'm trying very hard to get at something here...
not so sure if I'm succeeding.

UV

 

[crystalonyx]

If everything is god, then nothing is god.

 

[fantome profane]

If everything is god, then nothing is god.

And if nothing is then everything is, it’s a matter of perspective.

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle” – Albert Einstein

 

[doppelganger]

CV,

I think people label and define their experiences IN TERMS
that define their current understanding of reality.

I also think that people's realities also BECOME... or Acutalize ...
according to their particular way of thinking/seeing/believing.

I think the reason I posted my story in the other thread
was because the line between theism & atheism can be so thin...
as to be merely a choice of a WAY OF THINKING/labeling...
a choice between Violet or Orange if you will,
even after experiencing a full blown epiphony and paradigm shift.

Fantastic post, Vi. Not much to add other than to say that this is impressive.

As I believe the Universe/Multiverse (everything) itself IS God
I can see how it might easily translate as a moot point to a scientific type/mind/thinker.
Even my experience that the UniVerse is Sentient & Consciously Interactive,
could be explained in scientific terms I am sure.

It can certainly be explained in psychological and semiotic terms.

I thrive in the realm of Magic.
Magical terms define my reality.

Everyone does. Some don't have a workable or powerful idea of what "magic" is . . . and so they don't label how they move in reality as "magic." But to those of us who control "magic", we know that everybody lives in the realm of magic, and every conscious person's reality is defined in magical terms.

I'm trying very hard to get at something here...
not so sure if I'm succeeding.

UV

I think you succeeded smashingly.

 

[doppelganger]

If everything is god, then nothing is god.

Right. So "God" exists, doesn't exist, and neither exists or doesn't exist all at the same time, depending on how you choose to think about and perceive your own being in relation to the totality of all that is. We aren't at this point talking about the "God" idols of religion (the "Creator", the "Father") as the "God" of the mystics is ineffable and cannot be assigned attributes or forms without destroying its vitality.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Fantastic post, Vi. Not much to add other than to say that this is impressive.

I agree.