Is there a one answer ?

[Sabour]

What about the question- do gods exist?

Thanks Tom and Gnostic Seeker for your answers.

But my point of the thread was that if: If I say God exists and You say I don't know and Someone says No God dones't exist. This doesn't change reality, meaning we can't be all right about that.

 

[Windwalker]

Is there a one answer to the questions in hand?

No, of course not. Is there a single shoe that fits all feet?

Like we may see things differently, which is having different perspectives, but does that affect reality?

Of course our perspectives affect reality. They affect our perceptions and subsequently our interactions with the world which is then affected by those interactions. The entire face of the planet has been affected by the realities we live inside our minds. We create the world in our own image, in what ways we have the power to.

Like if we say there is X but people perceive it as Y or Z, it is still X.

So the answer to what is that, is this is X, regardless if you saw it as Y or Z.

First do bear in mind that we are affecting that X through our interactions with it, so it is changing or evolving. But more importantly unless you are able to see and hear, taste and know that reality from all perspectives and no perspectives at once, you are not seeing nor knowing what that reality is.

When it comes to the case of "revealed" religions for instance, those where the Absolute is believed to have 'spoken' in written word to the various tribe or people who assign the Absolute to their deity form, this even if true does not bypass the fact of perception of what the truth is. The very second it is put into words, it ceases to be Absolute, but more importantly it is completely dependent on the perspectives and perceptions of the hearer or reader of these words. That perception or interpretation is not Absolute. It's relative to the hearers point of view. And that you have a collective of people who "generally" agree upon a point of view, that is itself still entirely relative. It's a 'consensus consciousness' that exists in a meditated, relative collective reality. That's why you have entirely different generally agreed upon truths within other groups.

So my point is that "God revealed the truth to us through our prophet", does not get rid of this problem. It cannot be claimed to be the Truth revealed by God because it will always be translated through ones own mind. And the prophets themselves speaking the words were injecting their perspectives in interpreting this 'revelation', they were 'receiving' and so forth. Their own minds of necessity had to be involved. It cannot escape their own interpretation of whatever that was they were perceiving. The whole model fails.

I think one is exposed to greater Truth looking at the sunset or the night sky, than reading the words of those who claim their truths were Absolute revelation. You have to filter out their relative realities to get to whatever light they may have actually been exposed to when they put their words to it. At least looking at the night sky it's much more 'direct revelation' than from the mouth of another. But people just don't trust what they sense and see themselves and so they want another to interpret it for them; trust in the prophet to tell you instead. "Look, he performed a miracle to prove you can believe him", and so forth. Revealed truth in the form of scriptures is a form of mythology.

In that sense I would say that there is a one "true" answer to every question. There is a fact.

You're conflating a lot of lines of thought here. There is the "fact" of a foot, or the "fact" of a shoe, but is there a single shoe that fits every foot? Each of our lived realities is unique. The only way there is a single answer to every question would be if we were all completely identical. Again, the fallacy of "revealed truth" being entirely subjected to relative realities. It is useless as Absolute truth in a relative reality. Calling it that makes it a mythology utilized to simulate Unity through leveling the playing field into relative "sameness". There is radical difference between uniformity and unity. It's a fallacy to call a "revealed truth" Absolute, or "One Answer".

Other answers away from that fact would be called different perceptions and they are wrong if they don't match the fact.

Whose understanding of the fact? And is that understanding Absolute, or relative?

 

[Sabour]

The answer is yes and no. The question is, what kind of God? What kind of definition of God are we talking about? And in the definition, what do we mean with the different words we're using? Are we thinking the same thing for whatever property we're describing God with? If we can agree on every particulate, maybe we can find an answer, but the problem is usually to even agree on what a god is supposed to be.

So you are saying that it depends on whether we have the same concept about God that matches with the reality of God.

Meaning if my perception of God was limited knowledge but God was All Knowing, my statement of God exists would be false ?

 

[Ultimatum]

I'm not a Bible believer but I do believe miracles (the seemingly impossible) happen regularly.

Oh yeah! Silly me! The miracle of saving the 10 million babies that die every year from medically curable diseases... oh wait.. not that one.. Oh yeah! The miracle of not actually creating any harmful organisms... oh wait.. not that one, either.

But that one time that Pastor John found his keys thanks to God... Dear God, that was incredible! Thank-you Yahwheh!

 

[Sabour]

No, of course not. Is there a single shoe that fits all feet?

Is that for all life aspects?

Of course our perspectives affect reality. They affect our perceptions and subsequently our interactions with the world which is then affected by those interactions. The entire face of the planet has been affected by the realities we live inside our minds. We create the world in our own image, in what ways we have the power to.

I would say yes and no to that. The view that our perceptions and approaches affect the world is acceptable with me but there are limits to how effect we really have on that. I wouldn't deny that over a long period of time, we would have a massive effect about how things are in the World, but that wouldn't change for example the fact that the sun would rise from the east because that is how the sun was created. Our perceptions will never change this fact. Unless one would say that east is only east because we gave it that name, which I think is pointless to raise as arguing labels will not change the fact that it rises from the same place to matter what you label that place.

First do bear in mind that we are affecting that X through our interactions with it, so it is changing or evolving. But more importantly unless you are able to see and hear, taste and know that reality from all perspectives and no perspectives at once, you are not seeing no knowing what that reality is.

When it comes to the case of "revealed" religions for instance, those where the Absolute is believed to have 'spoken' in written word to the various tribe or people who assign the Absolute to their deity form, this even if true does not bypass the fact of perception of what the truth is. The very second it is put into words, it ceases to be Absolute, but more importantly it is completely dependent on the perspectives and perceptions of the hearer or reader of these words. That perception or interpretation is not Absolute. It's relative to the hearers point of view. And that you have a collective of people who "generally" agree upon a point of view, that is itself still entirely relative. It's a 'consensus consciousness' that exists in a meditated, relative collective reality. That's why you have entirely different generally agreed upon truths within other groups.

So my point is that "God revealed the truth to us through our prophet", does not get rid of this problem. It cannot be claimed to be the Truth revealed by God because it will always be translated through ones own mind. And the prophet themselves speaking the words we injecting their perspectives in interpreting the this 'revelation', and so forth. The whole model fails. I think one is exposed to greater Truth looking at the sunset or the night sky, than reading the words of those who claim their truths were Absolute revelation. You have to filter out their relative realities to get to whatever light they may have actually been exposed to when they put their words to it. Revealed truth in the form of scriptures is a mythology.

Well I remember having this debate once with you. There are a couple of points I would say on that.

I agree to the fact that there are different interpretations to the same thing read or heard by different people. But how do people learn? Isn't it by reading books and hearing to lectures? The more explanations you give the less deviation ideas held by students. Who would get the understanding 100 %?

Well no one, but you don't need a 100/100 grade to pass a course. You need to demonstrate that you are good enough to do so.

You're conflating a lot of lines of thought here. There is the "fact" of a foot, or the "fact" of a shoe, but is there a single shoe that fits every foot? Each of our lived realities is unique. The only way there is a single answer to every question would be if we were all completely identical. Again, the fallacy of "revealed truth" be entirely subjected to relative realities. It is useless as and Absolute truth in a relative reality. Calling it that makes it a mythology utilized to simulate Unity through leveling the playing filed into relative "sameness". There is radical difference between uniformity and unity.

Well I would call the "fact" of the shoe a perception and the "fact" of a shoe reality. If that reality is comprehensive enough and proven to be, I would say yes there is a shoe that fits every foot. We don't have to be identical for that, but rather a reality must be big and comprehensive enough to fit us all. Look at muslims and look at Christians. Are all Christians the same? Are all muslims the same?

Whose understanding of the fact? And is that understanding Absolute, or relative?

The actual point was it doesn't matter who has the right understanding of the fact. An apple would be an apple whether I said it was an orange or an apple.

 

[The Hammer]

It is not a debate about my nickname, but I guess my nickname is on the line.

Is there a one answer to the questions in hand?

Like we may see things differently, which is having different perspectives, but does that affect reality?

Like if we say there is X but people perceive it as Y or Z, it is still X.

So the answer to what is that, is this is X, regardless if you saw it as Y or Z.

In that sense I would say that there is a one "true" answer to every question. There is a fact. Other answers away from that fact would be called different perceptions and they are wrong if they don't match the fact.

If you see X, and I see Z. Then X is the true answer for you, whereas Z is the true answer for me. Even if they are the same thing, it's all opinion and perception. You can tell me all day the grass is green, that does not make it so if I see yellow grass. And it doesn't make either of us wrong either.

 

[The Hammer]

Peace be on you. It is like: Can many centers of equal intensity / powers exist and sustain and let others sustain. [remember all times clash b/n worldly super powers! as example; they keep fighting these islands are mine. No they are mine.......Those natural resources are mine. No mine.......Keep people hungry, send mission to sun. No i shall feed people first,,,,,,all sorts of inter-super power struggles have brought the world to todays end...other matters are just covers, names and debates for time passing]

latter edit: super powers means worldy countries with powers, not angels.

Different powers struggling over resources causing strife and mayhem, at the detriment of those under their charge. Sounds like the Gods to me.

 

[The Hammer]

Oh yeah! Silly me! The miracle of saving the 10 million babies that die every year from medically curable diseases... oh wait.. not that one.. Oh yeah! The miracle of not actually creating any harmful organisms... oh wait.. not that one, either.

But that one time that Pastor John found his keys thanks to God... Dear God, that was incredible! Thank-you Yahwheh!

You might want to put your pants back on, your sarcasm is showing.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you are saying that it depends on whether we have the same concept about God that matches with the reality of God.

Meaning if my perception of God was limited knowledge but God was All Knowing, my statement of God exists would be false ?

Kind'a.

Let me put it another way. If I ask, do oranges (the fruit) exist? The answer is easier because most people have some experience of actually seeing and/or eating an orange.

But with God, there are so many different views on what a god is in general, and more specifically who/what is The God. To me, God is the Universe and everything beyond it that exists. It's the word that encompasses all things that exists, existed in the past, will exist in the future, have potential to exist, etc. God is the term for Tao, Ground of all Being, Substrate or Fabric of Existence, etc. Basically, to me, God is equal to what exists, so to ask if my God exists or not when I equate existence itself to the word, has a very simple answer. But if we think of God as a Gandalf looking character sitting on a golden throne somewhere on Mars... we might be out of luck finding him. And the we have all thousand different kinds of gods in between. Which one of the gods are we trying to figure out the answer for when the answer for "What/who is God" doesn't have one answer?

 

[Sabour]

If you see X, and I see Z. Then X is the true answer for you, whereas Z is the true answer for me. Even if they are the same thing, it's all opinion and perception. You can tell me all day the grass is green, that does not make it so if I see yellow grass. And it doesn't make either of us wrong either.

The X I am seeing is the perception I am having for a certain thing. The Z you are seeing is the perception for that same thing. So what we are describing is the same, but the labels are different.

So for the case of the yellow and green grass, I would say that by you saying green and I saying yellow, we are still describing the same object which is the grass. If we were to examine my perception of green and your perception of yellow, we would find that they are the same. Meaning the reasons why you described that as yellow are the same reasons why I described them as green. Hence this difference is only labeling difference and doesnt much relate to our topic. A blind guy doesn't say that the trees are black because this is not reality.

 

[Sabour]

Kind'a.

Let me put it another way. If I ask, do oranges (the fruit) exist? The answer is easier because most people have some experience of actually seeing and/or eating an orange.

But with God, there are so many different views on what a god is in general, and more specifically who/what is The God. To me, God is the Universe and everything beyond it that exists. It's the word that encompasses all things that exists, existed in the past, will exist in the future, have potential to exist, etc. God is the term for Tao, Ground of all Being, Substrate or Fabric of Existence, etc. Basically, to me, God is equal to what exists, so to ask if my God exists or not when I equate existence itself to the word, has a very simple answer. But if we think of God as a Gandalf looking character sitting on a golden throne somewhere on Mars... we might be out of luck finding him. And the we have all thousand different kinds of gods in between. Which one of the gods are we trying to figure out the answer for when the answer for "What/who is God" doesn't have one answer?

We are trying to find the true God. The God that really exists. Does that sound like an impossible answer to you ?

 

[Ouroboros]

We are trying to find the true God. The God that really exists. Does that sound like an impossible answer to you ?

That's easy. The Universe exists, that's the True God. So we don't have to look any further.

If you now take on yourself to argue another kind of God, then I can just say that you're suggesting a God who is not true and therefore does not exist.

So which God is the "True" God? The one you suggest or the one I suggest?

 

[The Hammer]

The X I am seeing is the perception I am having for a certain thing. The Z you are seeing is the perception for that same thing. So what we are describing is the same, but the labels are different.

So for the case of the yellow and green grass, I would say that by you saying green and I saying yellow, we are still describing the same object which is the grass. If we were to examine my perception of green and your perception of yellow, we would find that they are the same. Meaning the reasons why you described that as yellow are the same reasons why I described them as green. Hence this difference is only labeling difference and doesnt much relate to our topic. A blind guy doesn't say that the trees are black because this is not reality.

No, but the blind man feels the grass and his perception of it is not the same as we see the grass, but he knows the grass as there. You see and feel the same things I do, but perceive them as the One-God, whereas I perceive them as the Many-Gods. It does not mean either of us are wrong, or that only one of us is right. It means we feel things differently.

Is it wrong to worship and give praise to the individual trees of a forest, or should I only praise the forest as a whole.

 

[Sabour]

That's easy. The Universe exists, that's the True God. So we don't have to look any further.

If you now take on yourself to argue another kind of God, then I can just say that you're suggesting a God who is not true and therefore does not exist.

So which God is the "True" God? The one you suggest or the one I suggest?

Well before I answer that, you have a similar view to mine saying that there is a right answer for who is God, that is what I sensed.

Secondly I think you can't say I am suggesting God who is not true because you didn't hear me out in the first place. So I won't answer you question right now because you gave what you perceive and didn't ask for what I perceive.

Why should I the one be wrong and not you ?

 

[Sabour]

No, but the blind man feels the grass and his perception of it is not the same as we see the grass, but he knows the grass as there. You see and feel the same things I do, but perceive them as the One-God, whereas I perceive them as the Many-Gods. It does not mean either of us are wrong, or that only one of us is right. It means we feel things differently.

Is it wrong to worship and give praise to the individual trees of a forest, or should I only praise the forest as a whole.

I think that is a whole different subject.

 

[The Hammer]

I think that is a whole different subject.

Not quite, but maybe. I will differ to your judgement.

 

[The Hammer]

I think that is a whole different subject.

In short, I do not believe there is one answer for everything, as there are multiple approaches to solving the same problem (living life fully and amicably), even if they ultimately all lead to the same place (eventual death/rebirth).

 

[Ouroboros]

Well before I answer that, you have a similar view to mine saying that there is a right answer for who is God, that is what I sensed.

Secondly I think you can't say I am suggesting God who is not true because you didn't hear me out in the first place. So I won't answer you question right now because you gave what you perceive and didn't ask for what I perceive.

It was more rhetorical than actually suggesting what you believe.

(You can tell by the "If you now...". It's like saying "let's now pretend that you would want to argue another standpoint than me, without actually saying that this is your true standpoint, but just let's pretend that you as a person had a different view and now would argue it.")

What I'm saying is: person A suggests a God defined as everything that exists. Person B suggests a God with properties we can't prove God has. The first God is by definition existing, the second God we don't know or could likely not exist.

Why should I the one be wrong and not you ?

That's my question too. Which definition of God is the right one? We can't prove God to exist or not, or knowing which one is the right one, until we can agree on what/who God is.

Put it this way, we could just as well as "Do Blurglorhxly exist?" You don't know what it is, and neither do I. So how can we know if there's a true Blurglorhxly if we don't even know what it is? God is like that. Beyond our understanding. We also have different views (we as in all of us, all people) of what God is. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of religions, all with different views on God. So which one is the right one? Everyone thinks their version of God is the true one. So the question is truly: Why your God instead of mine?

Your question to this thread was "Is there a one answer?" And the answer depends on "Why would person A's answer be more correct than person B's?" Because we all have different definitions of God, there's no answer until we decide who is the one who has to be right and everyone else must be wrong. And we'll never get to that situation. In other words, we can't find the one answer even if there is one.

 

[Sabour]

It was more rhetorical than actually suggesting what you believe.

What I'm saying is: person A suggests a God defined as everything that exists. Person B suggests a God with properties we can't prove God has. The first God is by definition existing, the second God we don't know or could likely not exist.


That's my question too. Which definition of God is the right one? We can't prove God to exist or not, or knowing which one is the right one, until we can agree on what/who God is.

Put it this way, we could just as well as "Do Blurglorhxly exist?" You don't know what it is, and neither do I. So how can we know if there's a true Blurglorhxly if we don't even know what it is? God is like that. Beyond our understanding. We also have different views (we as in all of us, all people) of what God is. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of religions, all with different views on God. So which one is the right one? Everyone thinks their version of God is the true one. So the question is truly: Why your God instead of mine?

Now I got your point.

Generally to come out to the right answer we can put on the table all the possible answers on the table and study them. That can work can't it? It would be like coming towards common terms.

If that is the case really, shouldn't everyone be atheists or agnostics or better put agnostic atheists ?

 

[Ouroboros]

Now I got your point.

Generally to come out to the right answer we can put on the table all the possible answers on the table and study them. That can work can't it? It would be like coming towards common terms.

Exactly!

We can't agree on something existing or not unless we agree on what it is that we're proving to exist. Apples, oranges, dogs, normal things in our world are easy because we can touch them, and they have much better evidentiary existence by their sheer nature. In other words, cats, horses, trees, and so on are defined by what exists. God on the other hand is a definition of something we don't understand or can touch/see/feel. And in some cases, some people have experience of God, but they have different experiences. So which experience is right? I don't know.

Sitting down and study them would be one way, but unfortunately, we're very stubborn people. LOL! We tend not to give up our views of God so easily. One person says this, the other says that, and they won't bend to each other.

If that is the case really, shouldn't everyone be atheists or agnostics or better put agnostic atheists ?

Agnostic probably. To be able to start from a blank slate, we all have to start with a great amount of doubt.
(I think that was Descartes' view.)