Can it not exist?

[Unveiled Artist]

You will probably get different answer from mostly every believer on what God truly are, because we do not hold exactly the same understanding.

Yes. I don't get to talk with everyone and my understanding of God as a being or entity is extremely limited. I haven't experienced god before but I understand what's meant by it to know whether I'm near to experience it (in a non-being context). Using God as a being or using that word to define consciousness isn't something I heard from you before.

Some things like your view of logic and seeing the physical from the spiritual are new beliefs I've hadn't heard you say before.

Anyway... I wanted to comment in the logic convo. Maybe saying it differently may help.

You are using logic when you move out of the way from a moving car. Your reasoning is it's a. Going fast, b. Likely to hit you, c. It will hurt, and d. Your human and mind sparks up in danger for you to react....when someone says it made sense or have good reasoning that you moved out the way, they refer to the logic you used to come to that conclusion (moving).

Whether it's spiritual or human is besides the point. It's using sound reasoning to draw a said conclusion and being able to demonstrate that conclusion without contradiction.

I "think" you're more concerned with how people will rate your answer. I understand from your other post how you came to that conclusion but the idea is logic is more about your reasoning.

So, I'm sure all your experiences and beliefs are sound but demonstrating it would be totally difference-hence the purpose of discussion. Not to bounce the same information off others but to upgrade by articulating more of what you believe (not defining God or consciousness but the reasoning behind it).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

To know something exists, we must be able to perceive it, either directly or indirectly.

If something can't be perceived directly or indirectly but someone claims it exists, they're either mistaken in their reasoning or lying... even if we can't rule out the possibility that they made an inadvertent lucky guess that coincidentally is true.

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

Sure... and in those cases, even someone who didn't see the thing can recognize that there's close agreement between the accounts of all the people who did see the thing.

If there's disagreement between the people who claim to have seen the thing, then at least some of them - if not all of them - are mistaken or lying, regardless of how sure they are of their claims.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes. I don't get to talk with everyone and my understanding of God as a being or entity is extremely limited. I haven't experienced god before but I understand what's meant by it to know whether I'm near to experience it (in a non-being context). Using God as a being or using that word to define consciousness isn't something I heard from you before.

Some things like your view of logic and seeing the physical from the spiritual are new beliefs I've hadn't heard you say before.

Anyway... I wanted to comment in the logic convo. Maybe saying it differently may help.

You are using logic when you move out of the way from a moving car. Your reasoning is it's a. Going fast, b. Likely to hut you, c. It will hurt, and d. Your human and mind sparks up in danger for you to react....when someone says it made sense or have good reasoning that you moved out the way, they refer to the logic you used to come to that conclusion (moving).

Whether it's spiritual or human is besides the point. It's using sound reasoning to draw a said conclusion and being able to demonstrate that conclusion without contradiction.

I "think" you're more concerned with how people will rate your answer. I understand from your other post how you came to that conclusion but the idea is logic is more of a room for reasoning. So, I'm sure all your experiences and beliefs are sound but demonstrating it would be totally difference-hencd the purpose of discussion. Not to bounce the same information off others but to upgrade by articulating more of what you believe (not defining God or consciousness but the reasoning).

To answer the first part of your reply.
A reason my answers differs from what I spoke about before is due to new understanding of the spiritual teaching in sufism, it's a part of the development of me as a sufi practitioner, so yes my answer will sometimes look very different to what I answered only a month ago.

For the other part: I still struggle with making deeper sense when I use English language to explain my thoughts and realization of spiritual topics.
I do not worry anymore about likes, or even being liked as a person in RF, what you see is what you get. And I only speak for how I understand spiritual topics or mundane topics. Other people may totally disagree and it's ok.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Strange that many believers seems to understand what I say.
Higher consciousness means a non physical being "entity" who holds a consciousness that is not like a human beings lower consciousness.

I think the only thing that's agreed is the result of the belief or spiritual awakening. Hindus view of conscious most likely differs than yours profoundly but in both cases it defines how you see life and make sense of it.

I don't think it's a human vs spiritual thing. I just think a lot of people want everyone to have one underlining source but it's not realistic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because you have to open up to it yourself that is what a spiritual practice is there for.

This seems to me like another way of saying "it seems as if these other realms don't exist unless you put extreme effort into convincing yourself that they're real."

 

[Spirit of Light]

This seems to me like another way of saying "it seems as if these other realms don't exist unless you put extreme effort into convincing yourself that they're real."

It is more about understanding how they can exist, than " convincing oneself to believe" spiritual teaching does actually teach how to awaken to those things ( not that I can see those dimensions with my physical eyes)

 

[Heyo]

Such is the claim. But somehow nobody can show such realms exist.

5 Planes of Existence

 

[Heyo]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

If I am colour blind (and don't have a device to measure light frequencies) I can non-the-less make a test, using people claiming to see colour, to determine if there is something to that claim. If those people claiming there is colour can answer reliably, consistently and independently to my tests, I have to concede there is something to their claim.
That is why I don't believe in a god or higher being. The answers I get from theists to test questions are unreliable and inconsistent (if I get answers at all).

 

[Spirit of Light]

If I am colour blind (and don't have a device to measure light frequencies) I can non-the-less make a test, using people claiming to see colour, to determine if there is something to that claim. If those people claiming there is colour can answer reliably, consistently and independently to my tests, I have to concede there is something to their claim.
That is why I don't believe in a god or higher being. The answers I get from theists to test questions are unreliable and inconsistent (if I get answers at all).

Because theists have different understand of scripture, and are on different level of wisdom (what they can perceive or not)
That would be my answer to your reply

So no, you not going to get a consistent answer by asking many theists. ( it's not science)

 

[Heyo]

Because theists have different understand of scripture, and are on different level of wisdom (what they can perceive or not)
That would be my answer to your reply

So no, you not going to get a consistent answer by asking many theists. ( it's not science)

So now I know that even those who claim to see colour don't really agree on anything. That doesn't prove that there is no colour, just that humans proclaiming to see colour don't.
That's enough for me not to bother about colour any more. If even the "experts" are so unreliable, it isn't worth to bother.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So now I know that even those who claim to see colour don't really agree on anything. That doesn't prove that there is no colour, just that humans proclaiming to see colour don't.
That's enough for me not to bother about colour any more. If even the "experts" are so unreliable, it isn't worth to bother.

To speak about color, each human being see color a little different, that does not mean color is not real.

 

[Heyo]

To speak about color, each human being see color a little different, that does not mean color is not real.

The experiment goes as follows:
I get a set of cards of different colours and ask subject A..J to name the colours.
I note the possible answers on the back.
I show the cards to subjects K..Z and tell them to use only colour names from the set I gained from A..J.
I note the answers in a spreadsheet and calculate the precision of the answers. I don't expect 100% precision. Humans are notoriously unreliable in their perception. But any precision below 50% is absolutely worthless.

Now imagine instead of colours I put questions about god on the cards. Well, you don't have to imagine, you can look at my OPs. Guess how the precision was.

 

[F1fan]

Since I believe our being can detect those things by it self I don't believe we need physical tools spiritual practice is what is needed to open up the senses to detect what humans can't detect today.

Which senses get opened, exactly? And what cognitive tools are used to discern imagined from authentic sensations?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because theists have different understand of scripture, and are on different level of wisdom (what they can perceive or not)
That would be my answer to your reply

So no, you not going to get a consistent answer by asking many theists. ( it's not science)

Edit
Different perspectives of the same thing is not the same as different definitions of completely different things regardless the same term used.

We both know the earth turns and maybe I have sunrise and you have the sunset. Same sun and we got the same reasoning behind our perspectives despite where we live in the world.

That's not the problem.

If you told me the sun goes around the earth yet we see the same sunrise and sunset I'd question your reasoning (your logic). Despite our seeing the same rise/set, the problem is you're saying the sun rotated and I am not.

That's what they are asking. One theist believes God is an entity, one energy, one a human, and another a mystic experience.

These aren't different perspectives of the same thing. These religious views have distinct sources, definitions, practice, and purpose. But they all use the term God (when speaking in English).

It's not about in your understanding, wise understand, be spiritually open, and I can't answer the question cause everyone is different, we know that.

But every person is describing a totally different idea, definition, culture, scripture, and language to describe the term God.

In order for God to be real (lbw) everyone should come to the same conclusion despite our perspectives. You should be able to say the earth turns just as I despite our location and rise/set.

Since theist cannot do this, to a good amount of atheist it makes it useless to ask questions about God and when they ask questions to challenge said logic it's the same: it's a fact in our opinion.

While it may be a foregone conclusion I guess some are hoping for a miracle.

 

[Lain]

That's what they are asking. One theist believes God is an entity, one energy, one a human, and another a mystic experience.

Wouldn't that just mean that they aren't all talking about the same thing, and one should categorize it differently and only ask about each thing individually, instead of assuming there is no agreement because they group disparate things together? If one did this with any other word it wouldn't make sense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wouldn't that just mean that they aren't all talking about the same thing, and one should categorize it differently and only ask about each thing individually, instead of assuming there is no agreement because they group disparate things together? If one did this with any other word it wouldn't make sense.

Could you rephrase the last part?

Pretty much. From seeing conversations with bahai and Hindu that alone shows the concepts of God are drastically different even in language in both religions. It could be just the English language and finding a good medium for mutual understanding at least in part.

I think it's categorized differently by culture and language but I only know new age like religions to find common ground. Most I came across have distinct definitions of God that it's more tolerance than acceptance.

 

[Polymath257]

5 Planes of Existence

And of those, only the first actually *exist*. Numbers and mathematics exist as linguistic conventions, as do other social conventions. And fictional things do not actually exist: that is what it means to be fictional. And illusions, while real experiences do not relate to things that actually exist.

So those 'planes of existence' are mostly non-existent. Only the first actually exists.

 

[Polymath257]

To speak about color, each human being see color a little different, that does not mean color is not real.

Nonetheless, there is agreement about a great deal, with the disagreements mostly at the edges of definitions. Furthermore, there are measurable differences in the physics of the colors. We also know the situations where our senses give misleading or wrong information (optical illusions, for example).

And, if you are blind or even color blind, you can test the consistency of the reports others give of colors and see how their reports compare to the physical aspects of color (as frequencies of electromagnetism).

If there was anything like as much consistency between different religious viewpoints or ideas about Gods as there is about color, there would be almost no debate about the existence of God(s). Instead, the descriptions and ideas about God(s) look like each person makes things up as they go along to make themselves feel better about themselves. Not a good way to test reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually the majority of matter in the universe is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments (so-called Dark Matter).

Except, of course, the reason we know it is there is because we *did* detect it: through its gravitational interactions. What we don't know is what it is made of and its detailed properties. But if it wasn't detectable *at all*, then we wouldn't say it was there.

 

[Polymath257]

Afaik, we don't have anything that extends our spiritual senses. Only our 5 traditional ones.

The normal 5 senses can not detect anything Spiritual or Supernatural. It's coming from somewhere/something we haven't quite pinpointed yet.

Which is precisely why I doubt whether 'spiritual senses' actually exist and detect anything real. I ultimately think they are a type of self-delusion.

But we can test this. Have a couple hundred practitioners of several different faiths that claim to have access to 'spiritual senses' and ask them independently what they detect in some situation. If you get consistent (or even mostly consistent) results, I will agree that they have some access to information that is different than the ordinary senses. But if they are scattered and have little agreement between them, then can we agree that they aren't actually detecting anything and they are likely to be delusional?