"Lack of belief"

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

I think this has nothing to do with the post you quoted by me. I said: "As a weak atheist, there is (or ought to be) a requirement of no assertions regarding theistic belief."

So, I agree that the position itself asserts nothing. And am essentially saying it ought to stay that way. Assert nothing about theism, god(s), etc. ever. For once those type of assertions are made, the part that is allegedly lacking is no longer exactly lacking. The concepts will be made front and center, and then it'll will be defending the position from assertions that deal with concepts which are observably not lacking.

Putting babies in that same context, if babies were asserting a whole bunch of items regarding theism, I'm pretty sure we'd no longer consider them implicit atheists.

Okay. Your earlier post seemed to imply to me that it was an assertion to not believe in any deities. I suppose I misread your post.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

Disagree strongly, and will not give up on this tangent because of your opinion of me misusing. Existence isn't required, it's assumed and that assumption is faith - or holding complete trust and confidence in something. The something being existence itself. Faith, easily, supersedes belief. It's only when doubt / uncertainty is entertained or considered, that faith is opened to further reasoning, further (counter) assumptions.

I am not averse to conceiving of how perceived reality is unreal. As a Buddhist, I subscribe to the spiritual vantage point of emptiness. As Tiantai Master Zhiyi expressed it in his Three Levels of Truth: all phenomena are empty or unreal (ultimate reality is real), all phenomena are real in an ordinary sense, and the "mean" of all phenomena as both real and unreal at once.

That said, on a pragmatic level, it's clear that ordinary, natural reality does functionally exist. Whether I opt to believe that I just stubbed my toe on a solid wooden table leg, or that the mere illusion of my toe merely appeared to get stubbed on the mere illusion of a solid wooden table leg, it makes no difference to the clear fact that I feel pain in my toe that reverberates throughout my body as a result of this real and evident event. What we call "real" are physical material and events with effects that can be sensed or measured.

Yet if someone opts to believe that what evidently exists is just as faith-based as the products of one's imagination, I would argue this is both nonsensical and potentially dangerous. Does this represent your position?

Which would be ultimately confirmed by my faith in my observations / experience with online forums. Thanks for serving that up on a silver platter.

No. Faith is belief without evidence. But instead, there actually is evidence for the existence of online forums: you can press keys on your keyboard to type, those typed words are uploaded to the server that hosts the online forum, etc., etc.

Now try doing the same thing with the material universe, without using anything perceived by physical senses (inherently biased). Or, I can show you God exists, because the Bible says so. Circular reasoning does not make for objectivity

I believe a material universe exists, and understand this to rest entirely on my faith in that existence, or more accurately, faith in my physical self to perceive its existence.

In what ways do you think it is circular reasoning to demonstrate any given qualities of existence with evidence? In the case of proving the Theory of Gravity, for instance, how would it be circular reasoning to show that gravity exists by the evidence of releasing an apple and watching it fall to the ground?

 

[Deidre]

I remember an atheist telling me once ''I don't lack anything!'' lol I always thought that was a cool way to view atheism.

As a theist, you can define yourself however you choose. But, I wouldn't get too caught up in the minutiae of it all. How you see yourself and how you'd like God to see you, is what matters most.

 

[Acim]

Hi Acim,

I am not averse to conceiving of how perceived reality is unreal. As a Buddhist, I subscribe to the spiritual vantage point of emptiness. As Tiantai Master Zhiyi expressed it in his Three Levels of Truth: all phenomena are empty or unreal (ultimate reality is real), all phenomena are real in an ordinary sense, and the "mean" of all phenomena as both real and unreal at once.

That said, on a pragmatic level, it's clear that ordinary, natural reality does functionally exist. Whether I opt to believe that I just stubbed my toe on a solid wooden table leg, or that the mere illusion of my toe merely appeared to get stubbed on the mere illusion of a solid wooden table leg, it makes no difference to the clear fact that I feel pain in my toe that reverberates throughout my body as a result of this real and evident event. What we call "real" are physical material and events with effects that can be sensed or measured.

Yet if someone opts to believe that what evidently exists is just as faith-based as the products of one's imagination, I would argue this is both nonsensical and potentially dangerous. Does this represent your position?

While I get the "potentially dangerous" part, I don't get the nonsensical part. If truly not averse to conceiving of perceived reality as unreal, then it shows semblance of understanding how what is unreal but believed/perceived to be source of (say) pain is actually faith based.

No. Faith is belief without evidence. But instead, there actually is evidence for the existence of online forums: you can press keys on your keyboard to type, those typed words are uploaded to the server that hosts the online forum, etc., etc.

Disagree that faith is belief without evidence. More like belief despite (perception of independent) evidence. I see it as an inverted or distorted assumption about the existence of reality (of Self). I think of this as inherently dangerous for as long as it is unexplored and/or taken for granted. It's the epitome of a treacherous mindset.

All the things you are suggesting as 'actually is evidence' are all things that (clearly) the mind is giving all meaning, power to for its (alleged) existence. Giving all power, meaning equals the faith component. Generally amounting to full confidence / trust that it exists and is 'reality.' While neglecting, overlooking, and/or downplaying the role mind has ascribed to 'self' in the process of 'observing' reality (as I know it). Thus it all starts with perception of self and is inward-outward in actuality, but once taken for granted will be suggested that it is inherently an outward-in proposition. Hence the treachery, though even that is barely grasped until one understands (namely through experience) that this physical self's existence actually rests on (fear of annihilation, fear of opposing Creator of Reality).

Admittedly, all of this is challenging to grasp intellectually from within the framework that is the illusion, confusing to understand the role of mind (has) in relation to the agents seemingly working counter to it (not realizing all of that starts with the mind). I think it helps to understand the same mechanism (or process) is at work in night dreams. Once a night dream is underway (being experienced), it no longer seems easy to shut it all down as 'figment of imagination' and so lots of relativity takes over as 'conditions of reality.' Hence lots of opportunity for 'potential danger' if convinced the world is independently real, and up to the individual self to test the limits of my reality within (this illusionary) existence (that isn't truly seen as illusion).

Until one awakens.

In what ways do you think it is circular reasoning to demonstrate any given qualities of existence with evidence? In the case of proving the Theory of Gravity, for instance, how would it be circular reasoning to show that gravity exists by the evidence of releasing an apple and watching it fall to the ground?

I mostly do not see a way around circular reasoning. The way I believe it is (somewhat) overcome is in understanding there are essentially two masters to conceivable existence. There is the master of my making which has created an order of existence that is perceived outward-in, but is in reality inward-out. I think I've shown ability to discuss this and if not am willing to explore it in whatever way that may be desired. The other Master is Creator of my Being, and is also inward, but is never perceived as going 'out.' So, the idea of a thought never leaves its source, resonates with me, though is challenging to grasp intellectually (I find) because of a conviction in "world outside of me" framework. Once a thought is fully accepted (via faith) as 'outside of me,' it becomes very challenging / implausible to understand own self as source of that existence. Thus a perceived break within the circle. Apple (outside of me) falls to ground (outside of me). Is essentially meaningless (empty) until/unless I ascribe theory of falling that potentially impacts my (physical) self. Thus potential danger. And thus, circle has completed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Acim, Kartari, Advaita has nicely categorized the two. Parmarthika Satya (absolute reality) and Vyavaharika Satya (pragmatic reality). Both real but at different levels.

 

[Kartari]

Ah here's that thread, thanks for reminding me Aupmanyav.

Yes indeed, there are several Buddhist philosophers (starting with Nagarjuna, I believe) who have described ordinary and ultimate reality and their relationship. Personally, I am more sympathetic to the Yogacara notion of mind/awareness itself as substantive while its contents (thoughts, perceptions, etc.) are unreal. What it all comes down to, iow, is they both describe the same reality, a reality that has both real and unreal qualities. I simply find the idea of reality as entirely unreal to be too fargone, too susceptible to nihilism.

 

[Kartari]

Hi there Acim,

Apologies for the delayed response, I got busy and then couldn't find the thread... Anyway...

While I get the "potentially dangerous" part, I don't get the nonsensical part. If truly not averse to conceiving of perceived reality as unreal, then it shows semblance of understanding how what is unreal but believed/perceived to be source of (say) pain is actually faith based.

"Perceived" is the key word in your comments above. If it is understood that our perceptions rather than reality itself can be unreal, then I agree with you in principle. However, I think based on your response we still differ as far as what we consider perceptions vs actual reality. Physical pain (i.e. getting bitten by a dog) imo is a real phenomenon with real consequences. We might perceive unreal things about that painful experience (e.g. I might subconsciously use it to reinforce a negative self image, such as "I always have the worst luck!" ...just to posit a simple example), but the tooth-on-flesh experience itself is real.

Disagree that faith is belief without evidence. More like belief despite (perception of independent) evidence. I see it as an inverted or distorted assumption about the existence of reality (of Self). I think of this as inherently dangerous for as long as it is unexplored and/or taken for granted. It's the epitome of a treacherous mindset.

All the things you are suggesting as 'actually is evidence' are all things that (clearly) the mind is giving all meaning, power to for its (alleged) existence. Giving all power, meaning equals the faith component. Generally amounting to full confidence / trust that it exists and is 'reality.' While neglecting, overlooking, and/or downplaying the role mind has ascribed to 'self' in the process of 'observing' reality (as I know it). Thus it all starts with perception of self and is inward-outward in actuality, but once taken for granted will be suggested that it is inherently an outward-in proposition. Hence the treachery, though even that is barely grasped until one understands (namely through experience) that this physical self's existence actually rests on (fear of annihilation, fear of opposing Creator of Reality).

Admittedly, all of this is challenging to grasp intellectually from within the framework that is the illusion, confusing to understand the role of mind (has) in relation to the agents seemingly working counter to it (not realizing all of that starts with the mind). I think it helps to understand the same mechanism (or process) is at work in night dreams. Once a night dream is underway (being experienced), it no longer seems easy to shut it all down as 'figment of imagination' and so lots of relativity takes over as 'conditions of reality.' Hence lots of opportunity for 'potential danger' if convinced the world is independently real, and up to the individual self to test the limits of my reality within (this illusionary) existence (that isn't truly seen as illusion).

Until one awakens.

In my experience, theistic faith is based on perceptions of evidence rather than actual evidence. I have simply heard and read a lot of arguments over the years, claims to have proof, evidence, or logic to support a theistic worldview, none of which imo has been particularly convincing. For every such argument, I've found at least one logical fallacy they've made.

I would agree that faith more broadly can be a belief with some basis in reasonable trust, though. One might expect their beloved of ten years, who has always shown love and support, to be similarly supportive in a present scenario. That would be faith based on reasonable trust.

Concerning the reality or unreality of existence though, I still think, as I described to Aupmanyav just now, that there are aspects of reality that are real, and aspects that are unreal. Dreams may be unreal, our perceptions in waking life can similarly be unreal. There is also the ever-changing quality to all existence: impermanence. I do not think there is cause to regard physical reality as unreal, however. While we might all be in the matrix for all we know, to my knowledge there remains zero evidence for such a proposition that physical reality is actually not real. If you cannot establish reasonable cause of reality to be unreal, I will continue to find it meaningless to regard it as unreal.

I mostly do not see a way around circular reasoning. The way I believe it is (somewhat) overcome is in understanding there are essentially two masters to conceivable existence. There is the master of my making which has created an order of existence that is perceived outward-in, but is in reality inward-out. I think I've shown ability to discuss this and if not am willing to explore it in whatever way that may be desired. The other Master is Creator of my Being, and is also inward, but is never perceived as going 'out.' So, the idea of a thought never leaves its source, resonates with me, though is challenging to grasp intellectually (I find) because of a conviction in "world outside of me" framework. Once a thought is fully accepted (via faith) as 'outside of me,' it becomes very challenging / implausible to understand own self as source of that existence. Thus a perceived break within the circle. Apple (outside of me) falls to ground (outside of me). Is essentially meaningless (empty) until/unless I ascribe theory of falling that potentially impacts my (physical) self. Thus potential danger. And thus, circle has completed.

The apple still exists and still falls to the ground, though. Perceptions about it, Einsteins' relativity, and the ever-changing nature of reality all notwithstanding. And evidence is still defined within the context of a real reality, or else I think one must be living in a fantasy about the unreality of everything... nothing makes any sense whatsoever within the context of an entirely unreal reality. How does anything happen at all without some fundamental aspect of reality being actually real? Dreams may be unreal, but not the mind that dreams them: if the mind is also unreal... how did anything happen at all?

What I find confusing, for starters, is your use of language such as "Creator" and "Master." I am not sure if you are (a) naming believed-in supernatural beings who you ascribe as conceivers of reality/illusion or (b) are merely giving personalized names to what you understand to be impersonal aspects of your own mind?

 

[Acim]

"Perceived" is the key word in your comments above. If it is understood that our perceptions rather than reality itself can be unreal, then I agree with you in principle. However, I think based on your response we still differ as far as what we consider perceptions vs actual reality. Physical pain (i.e. getting bitten by a dog) imo is a real phenomenon with real consequences. We might perceive unreal things about that painful experience (e.g. I might subconsciously use it to reinforce a negative self image, such as "I always have the worst luck!" ...just to posit a simple example), but the tooth-on-flesh experience itself is real.

I would say the experience itself is experienced. You aren't readily establishing what makes it real. And are clearly stating 'in your opinion.' Is physical pain experienced in a night dream, real phenomenon with real consequences?

What I think is being overlooked, somehow bypassed (thought I actually get how) is the 'perception of self' which manifests the perception of experience. I use the night dream analogy because I think it helps in understanding how the perception of self initiated a world of existence and a world that self experiences. I don't think the 'how' is crystal clear in using the night dream analogy, at least if one is convinced of an outward-in approach to reality. But I think the night dream analogy helps, due to experiencing of waking, to see the power that mind can have for perception of self. This isn't just 'perception of self' as isolated from all things around it. In the night dream all things around 'self' (without exception) are still self, but not necessarily perceived that way in the experience, as it is occurring.

Here's hoping a short paragraph like the one above can help explain such a thing.

In my experience, theistic faith is based on perceptions of evidence rather than actual evidence. I have simply heard and read a lot of arguments over the years, claims to have proof, evidence, or logic to support a theistic worldview, none of which imo has been particularly convincing. For every such argument, I've found at least one logical fallacy they've made.

I'm curious how you would convey 'actual evidence' that would bypass perception of self?

As someone who has what I take to be uncommon theistic faith, I think I get what type of evidences you are referring to, though not sure. If the evidence is 'outside' of self and said to be incontrovertible, I as a theist find ways to poke holes in that, and likely just walk away saying (to myself) that's very disputable, but up to them to choose what they wish to see as 'incontrovertible.'

I would agree that faith more broadly can be a belief with some basis in reasonable trust, though. One might expect their beloved of ten years, who has always shown love and support, to be similarly supportive in a present scenario. That would be faith based on reasonable trust.

I was at one time religious, but more along lines of indoctrinated with religious ideas. I then became agnostic. I haven't thrown my agnosticism away entirely, and haven't forgotten some of what I was indoctrinated with religion. I will sometimes revisit both mindsets that I previously had and to some degree maintain. I am now spiritual, and what I self identify as strong theism. It is based on reason. If I go back and revisit my religious beliefs or my agnostic thought patterns, I see them as understanding faith in a way that amounts to 'blind faith.' Thus, not so reasonable. In my spiritual understandings, I essentially see no way around fundamental faith and that starts with perception (or Knowledge) of Self. In essence, that is never out of the picture. My theism has zero conception of God outside of my being. Yet, because of past experience (with religion and agnosticism), I am able to recall what it is like to understand God as being outside of me. It still strikes me as akin to blind faith, but I actually think of it as closer to self deception.

Concerning the reality or unreality of existence though, I still think, as I described to Aupmanyav just now, that there are aspects of reality that are real, and aspects that are unreal. Dreams may be unreal, our perceptions in waking life can similarly be unreal. There is also the ever-changing quality to all existence: impermanence. I do not think there is cause to regard physical reality as unreal, however. While we might all be in the matrix for all we know, to my knowledge there remains zero evidence for such a proposition that physical reality is actually not real. If you cannot establish reasonable cause of reality to be unreal, I will continue to find it meaningless to regard it as unreal.

Lots of mixing of conceptions here, such that I wouldn't dispute or attempt to establish that there is reasonable cause to see reality as unreal. While I would, and believe I already have, establish(ed) physical existence as unreal. The reasonable cause being perception (or Knowledge) of Self.

The apple still exists and still falls to the ground, though. Perceptions about it, Einsteins' relativity, and the ever-changing nature of reality all notwithstanding. And evidence is still defined within the context of a real reality, or else I think one must be living in a fantasy about the unreality of everything... nothing makes any sense whatsoever within the context of an entirely unreal reality. How does anything happen at all without some fundamental aspect of reality being actually real? Dreams may be unreal, but not the mind that dreams them: if the mind is also unreal... how did anything happen at all?

All interesting inquiries. Reminds me of things I asked when moving from agnosticism to gnosticism, or what I self identify as strong theism.

What I find confusing, for starters, is your use of language such as "Creator" and "Master." I am not sure if you are (a) naming believed-in supernatural beings who you ascribe as conceivers of reality/illusion or (b) are merely giving personalized names to what you understand to be impersonal aspects of your own mind?

Mostly (a) and a little of (b) though I would phrase (b) differently. I think (b) is how Knowledge arises, or is (previously) established and (a) is the perceptual order.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know of no adult atheist that is unfamiliar with the concept of gods.

You think the term "gods" describes a single concept? Why? Can you describe this concept?

I think it describes many concepts and that any given adult atheist is unfamiliar with most of them.

 

[viole]

The sun does orbit the earth.

What about Mars? Does the sun orbit Mars, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

You think the term "gods" describes a single concept? Why? Can you describe this concept?

Divinity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Divinity

Simple Definition of divinity

: the state of being a god : the state of being divine

: a god or goddess

: the formal study of religion, religious practices, and religious beliefs

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divinity

Unless you mean something more than the dictionary definition, this seems circular... and therefore useless in getting to the bottom of what you could mean by "the concept of gods".

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

I would say the experience itself is experienced. You aren't readily establishing what makes it real. And are clearly stating 'in your opinion.' Is physical pain experienced in a night dream, real phenomenon with real consequences?

What makes something real is its quality of actually existing or being true, independently of one's own mind or imagination. Nature or physical existence is thereby apparently quite real. While our unaided senses may not accurately convey the entirety of truth about nature (i.e. seeing only a sliver of the EM spectrum with our eyes, the fact of 99%+ of seemingly solid matter being empty space, etc.), our senses do perceive facets of reality, and there nonetheless must logically be some facets of existence that are real for anything to be perceived at all. Without any underlying reality, we would not exist, we would not be having this conversation... logically, there must be a very real structure to existence for anything we experience to actually occur whatsoever.

What I think is being overlooked, somehow bypassed (thought I actually get how) is the 'perception of self' which manifests the perception of experience. I use the night dream analogy because I think it helps in understanding how the perception of self initiated a world of existence and a world that self experiences. I don't think the 'how' is crystal clear in using the night dream analogy, at least if one is convinced of an outward-in approach to reality. But I think the night dream analogy helps, due to experiencing of waking, to see the power that mind can have for perception of self. This isn't just 'perception of self' as isolated from all things around it. In the night dream all things around 'self' (without exception) are still self, but not necessarily perceived that way in the experience, as it is occurring.

Here's hoping a short paragraph like the one above can help explain such a thing.

Mind itself is real. Mind is the underlying reality from which dreams come to be perceived. How else could thoughts, feelings, and perceptions occur without a real mind to form them?

I'm curious how you would convey 'actual evidence' that would bypass perception of self?

Facts can be discerned independently of personal bias. This is what the scientific method aims to achieve, along with other approaches to objective examination and analysis. While we may ever work at removing imperfections in our ability to see things completely accurately, this does not imply that nothing is real.

As someone who has what I take to be uncommon theistic faith, I think I get what type of evidences you are referring to, though not sure. If the evidence is 'outside' of self and said to be incontrovertible, I as a theist find ways to poke holes in that, and likely just walk away saying (to myself) that's very disputable, but up to them to choose what they wish to see as 'incontrovertible.'

This needs examples.

I was at one time religious, but more along lines of indoctrinated with religious ideas. I then became agnostic. I haven't thrown my agnosticism away entirely, and haven't forgotten some of what I was indoctrinated with religion. I will sometimes revisit both mindsets that I previously had and to some degree maintain. I am now spiritual, and what I self identify as strong theism. It is based on reason. If I go back and revisit my religious beliefs or my agnostic thought patterns, I see them as understanding faith in a way that amounts to 'blind faith.' Thus, not so reasonable. In my spiritual understandings, I essentially see no way around fundamental faith and that starts with perception (or Knowledge) of Self. In essence, that is never out of the picture. My theism has zero conception of God outside of my being. Yet, because of past experience (with religion and agnosticism), I am able to recall what it is like to understand God as being outside of me. It still strikes me as akin to blind faith, but I actually think of it as closer to self deception.

I am a spiritual person, though not a theist. I had a special spiritual experience when I was younger, and came to believe in a pantheistic worldview for a time. I had thoughts that I regarded as coming from what I would call God which I envisioned as some sort of universal consciousness. A mind of infinite intelligence that somehow persisted throughout the universe itself.

I came to realize though that I could not actually show, either logically or demonstrably, that those thoughts from "God" were actually coming from a mind independent of my own.

Hence, I typically challenge theists when the topic comes up to demonstrate that their idea(s) of god(s) can be shown to exist beyond the confines of the human imagination. I've yet to find a single satisfactory answer.

Lots of mixing of conceptions here, such that I wouldn't dispute or attempt to establish that there is reasonable cause to see reality as unreal. While I would, and believe I already have, establish(ed) physical existence as unreal. The reasonable cause being perception (or Knowledge) of Self.

What reason is there to believe that physical existence is unreal? I saw nothing convincing in your posts thus far, unfortunately. While I would agree that our perceptions about reality can vary from the truth, this difficulty does not preclude the existence of physical reality whatsoever.

All interesting inquiries. Reminds me of things I asked when moving from agnosticism to gnosticism, or what I self identify as strong theism.

I appear to have taken the opposite trip in my lifetime.

Mostly (a) and a little of (b) though I would phrase (b) differently. I think (b) is how Knowledge arises, or is (previously) established and (a) is the perceptual order.

I find it strange to regard independent spirit beings as real when there is no evidence that they exist beyond the confines of the human imagination. But to each one's own.

 

[Acim]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divinity

Unless you mean something more than the dictionary definition, this seems circular... and therefore useless in getting to the bottom of what you could mean by "the concept of gods".

Would you like me to start a poll and help provide proof of my point? I would ask, "Atheists are you unfamiliar with the concept of "gods?" And have the following responses, "yes - I am unfamiliar" or "No - I am not unfamiliar." If you wish, I could put in a response along lines of, "I'm not sure, it truly depends on what is meant by the concept of 'gods'."

It's interesting that atheists on this forum will use this term and apparently, according you you, not be familiar with the concept unless it is explicitly defined what all the gods are.

Would be like stating people in general are absent of a belief in energy. Such that when the concept of energy is invoked into conversation, by default there would be an absence of belief in that concept unless or until that concept is explicitly stating what it is referring to.

Heck, you could do the same thing with concept of atheism. Lacking a belief that atheism exists until atheists are explicit with which gods that are claiming a lack of belief in. If they say all gods, then that would mean they have concept of what it is they are actually speaking about.

 

[Acim]

Hi Acim,

What makes something real is its quality of actually existing or being true, independently of one's own mind or imagination. Nature or physical existence is thereby apparently quite real.

Not in my own mind. You aren't showing how this is independent of my mind (nor yours), nor consciousness in general.

While our unaided senses may not accurately convey the entirety of truth about nature (i.e. seeing only a sliver of the EM spectrum with our eyes, the fact of 99%+ of seemingly solid matter being empty space, etc.), our senses do perceive facets of reality, and there nonetheless must logically be some facets of existence that are real for anything to be perceived at all. Without any underlying reality, we would not exist, we would not be having this conversation... logically, there must be a very real structure to existence for anything we experience to actually occur whatsoever.

I agree with this. Idealism agrees with this.

Facts can be discerned independently of personal bias. This is what the scientific method aims to achieve, along with other approaches to objective examination and analysis. While we may ever work at removing imperfections in our ability to see things completely accurately, this does not imply that nothing is real.

This does not address what I asked, when I inquired: I'm curious how you would convey 'actual evidence' that would bypass perception of self?

This needs examples.

When you earlier said: the fact of 99%+ of seemingly solid matter being empty space, I see this as disputable. Pretty sure science doesn't see this as infallible/incontrovertible. So, is one example, but not really what I was getting at before.

I was saying if a fellow theist asserts 'the shroud of Jesus' provides incontrovertible evidence of the existence of Jesus, I find ways to poke holes in that, and likely just walk away saying (to myself) that's very disputable, but up to them to choose what they wish to see as 'incontrovertible.'

I am a spiritual person, though not a theist. I had a special spiritual experience when I was younger, and came to believe in a pantheistic worldview for a time. I had thoughts that I regarded as coming from what I would call God which I envisioned as some sort of universal consciousness. A mind of infinite intelligence that somehow persisted throughout the universe itself.

I came to realize though that I could not actually show, either logically or demonstrably, that those thoughts from "God" were actually coming from a mind independent of my own.

Hence, I typically challenge theists when the topic comes up to demonstrate that their idea(s) of god(s) can be shown to exist beyond the confines of the human imagination. I've yet to find a single satisfactory answer.

I do similar thing with alleged existence of physical reality and am yet to find a single satisfactory answer. Honestly, the very few that have tried have nearly conceded before I had chance to weigh in on their assertions.

I don't generally conceive of God as a "me separate from God" concept. I think of it as a We proposition. Thus, virtually impossible to frame it (the concept) as independent of my mind, though mere words are able to form concepts along lines of - God is over there (being sky fairy) while I'm over here (being human) and because my physical eyes do not detect him, He must be separate from me. Seemingly possible to have religious faiths set up around the idea that God and me (or us) are separated and nowhere near each other right now.

What reason is there to believe that physical existence is unreal? I saw nothing convincing in your posts thus far, unfortunately. While I would agree that our perceptions about reality can vary from the truth, this difficulty does not preclude the existence of physical reality whatsoever.

The reason to believe physical existence is unreal is understanding perception of Self. Understanding that God and Self are not in (any) Reality separate. If the perception is God is nowhere to be found, then one is not looking at Reality in making that determination. They sure as heck might think they are. I sure as heck think that when I'm dreaming a dream of physical existence, it is real. Wouldn't matter if 'you' entered that dream and told me, while dog is chomping my leg off that this entire world is an illusion of my mind. I'm still going to want the so called illusionary dog to stop biting my illusionary leg that is causing me to feel what I interpret as real pain. Thus, seemingly a lot more helpful in the dream state to get the dog off my leg then tell me this is all a dream that my mind is telling me regarding the perception of my Self. Now, before or after such an incident, the message would provide context, such that I would understand that this physical self is not actually me. But as long as I'm attached to that concept of myself, it probably won't matter, and surely won't seem to matter if I am experiencing pain, or possibility of physical death.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you like me to start a poll and help provide proof of my point? I would ask, "Atheists are you unfamiliar with the concept of "gods?" And have the following responses, "yes - I am unfamiliar" or "No - I am not unfamiliar." If you wish, I could put in a response along lines of, "I'm not sure, it truly depends on what is meant by the concept of 'gods'."

It's interesting that atheists on this forum will use this term and apparently, according you you, not be familiar with the concept unless it is explicitly defined what all the gods are.

Would be like stating people in general are absent of a belief in energy. Such that when the concept of energy is invoked into conversation, by default there would be an absence of belief in that concept unless or until that concept is explicitly stating what it is referring to.

Heck, you could do the same thing with concept of atheism. Lacking a belief that atheism exists until atheists are explicit with which gods that are claiming a lack of belief in. If they say all gods, then that would mean they have concept of what it is they are actually speaking about.

I find it funny that you're happy to argue that the concept is widely understood, but you've been unwilling so far to prove your point simply by just saying what "the concept of god" means. If you're right, you should be able to do this easily. Can you?

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

As a theist you could say that, and perhaps be asked by inquiring minds why you lack belief in a godless universe or materialism. I'd ask in materialism's case to what degree you feel the senses should be doubted. Not all atheists are materialists either, for the record. I as an agnostic atheist would say we atheists cannot prove there is not a god. The question is: is there any way to have a proof of a god? If not, the concept is subject to each individual's views and doubts. If you're saying atheism is a belief, I for my part might not disagree. Certainly I think gnostic atheism has to be a belief.

 

[Kartari]

Not in my own mind. You aren't showing how this is independent of my mind (nor yours), nor consciousness in general.

To be clear, you do not think the natural universe is real?

What is it, then, in your opinion? I know you think it's unreal, but more precisely what do you think it is, or might be?

I agree with this. Idealism agrees with this.

If you do not believe the natural universe is real, then what do you believe is this underlying reality?

This does not address what I asked, when I inquired: I'm curious how you would convey 'actual evidence' that would bypass perception of self?

Yes, it does directly address it... or at least what I think you are trying to say. When you ask me for how I would "bypass perception of self," do you mean to ask me how I would account for personal bias (i.e. confirmation bias)?

When you earlier said: the fact of 99%+ of seemingly solid matter being empty space, I see this as disputable. Pretty sure science doesn't see this as infallible/incontrovertible. So, is one example, but not really what I was getting at before.

Um... this is basic nuclear science. Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and are separated by far more space than mass.

I was saying if a fellow theist asserts 'the shroud of Jesus' provides incontrovertible evidence of the existence of Jesus, I find ways to poke holes in that, and likely just walk away saying (to myself) that's very disputable, but up to them to choose what they wish to see as 'incontrovertible.'

Factually speaking, there are ways to poke holes in that belief (e.g. first prove Jesus' existence, etc.). "Wish to see" is an apt description of what is "incontrovertible" to a firm believer who overlooks/misunderstands the facts.

I do similar thing with alleged existence of physical reality and am yet to find a single satisfactory answer. Honestly, the very few that have tried have nearly conceded before I had chance to weigh in on their assertions.

How do you doubt the reality of physical existence when it is, quite frankly, quite self-evident? The fact that you and I can walk, enjoy eating food, see sights, and experience all sorts of experiences and thoughts is evidence that existence itself is fundamentally real. You agree with me that there must be some fundamental reality or else nothing would be possible to think or experience.

If one wants to assert instead that, for instance, all of physical reality is really an illusion, and that we are in a matrix of some sort (e.g. maybe our minds are real and all is a dream), this merely begs the question: how do you know this? It's a baseless assertion.

The simplest solution is the most reasonable. Until we have evidence that physical existence is unreal, it is reasonable to assume that physical existence is real since it makes the most sense given our present pool of evidence and knowledge about reality (i.e. physics, etc.).

I don't generally conceive of God as a "me separate from God" concept. I think of it as a We proposition. Thus, virtually impossible to frame it (the concept) as independent of my mind, though mere words are able to form concepts along lines of - God is over there (being sky fairy) while I'm over here (being human) and because my physical eyes do not detect him, He must be separate from me. Seemingly possible to have religious faiths set up around the idea that God and me (or us) are separated and nowhere near each other right now.

Either way, God as self or as separate from self, how does one begin to establish that the existence of God is more than mere imaginative speculation?

The reason to believe physical existence is unreal is understanding perception of Self. Understanding that God and Self are not in (any) Reality separate. If the perception is God is nowhere to be found, then one is not looking at Reality in making that determination. They sure as heck might think they are. I sure as heck think that when I'm dreaming a dream of physical existence, it is real. Wouldn't matter if 'you' entered that dream and told me, while dog is chomping my leg off that this entire world is an illusion of my mind. I'm still going to want the so called illusionary dog to stop biting my illusionary leg that is causing me to feel what I interpret as real pain. Thus, seemingly a lot more helpful in the dream state to get the dog off my leg then tell me this is all a dream that my mind is telling me regarding the perception of my Self. Now, before or after such an incident, the message would provide context, such that I would understand that this physical self is not actually me. But as long as I'm attached to that concept of myself, it probably won't matter, and surely won't seem to matter if I am experiencing pain, or possibility of physical death.

Again... how do you know that the union of "God and Self" is a reality beyond the confines of human imagination? It's one thing to conceptualize physical reality as analogous to a dream, and entirely another thing to factually know that this is the case.

 

[Acim]

I find it funny that you're happy to argue that the concept is widely understood, but you've been unwilling so far to prove your point simply by just saying what "the concept of god" means. If you're right, you should be able to do this easily. Can you?

I believe I already did say what the concept of god means, but you disputed that as circular reasoning. This is one of those incidental points that makes me want to question it each time an atheist on the forum uses the word "gods" and then debate that they probably don't have concept of that word for it to be meaningful. If they suggest they do, I'll respond with please take it up with 9-10ths_Penguin who seems to think the concept is not widely understood.

 

[Acim]

To be clear, you do not think the natural universe is real?

What is it, then, in your opinion? I know you think it's unreal, but more precisely what do you think it is, or might be?

An illusion.

I can get more specific, but it would be utilizing spiritual and/or psychological terminology

If you do not believe the natural universe is real, then what do you believe is this underlying reality?

I'd stipulate what you are calling "natural" universe with (perception of) physical existence. I believe the underlying Reality is God, or put in other words that I may use: God's Mind, God's Kingdom, Heaven. I routinely just reference it as Reality (with a capital R).

Yes, it does directly address it... or at least what I think you are trying to say. When you ask me for how I would "bypass perception of self," do you mean to ask me how I would account for personal bias (i.e. confirmation bias)?

No. I'm asking how it is said "actual evidence" exists without the conscious awareness of observer in determining it is a) evidence and b) existing.

How do you doubt the reality of physical existence when it is, quite frankly, quite self-evident?

By (spiritual) Knowledge regarding (perception of) Self.

If one wants to assert instead that, for instance, all of physical reality is really an illusion, and that we are in a matrix of some sort (e.g. maybe our minds are real and all is a dream), this merely begs the question: how do you know this? It's a baseless assertion.

We don't know this by seeing answers within the illusion, I'll grant that. We can know this by looking within. Thing is, it doesn't need outer acceptance / agreement for it to have strong basis. In essence, finding the answer within overcomes conviction in all ideas of separation from a) Reality (aka God) and b) other selves. It then provides acute understanding of what the world (physical existence) actually is, and full restoration of Divine Insight is possible. Might not be simple as a dimple, but that has to do with willingness and attachment(s) to physical existence. Part of reason I bring up night dreams is because the analogy works on a few levels, though the restoration of Divine awareness, not so much.

The simplest solution is the most reasonable. Until we have evidence that physical existence is unreal, it is reasonable to assume that physical existence is real since it makes the most sense given our present pool of evidence and knowledge about reality (i.e. physics, etc.).

I see the evidence as quite Self-evident. I do think it is quasi-rational to assume physical world is real, but disagree it makes the most sense given present pool of evidence and knowledge about reality. If physical sciences wish to close themselves off to available evidence based on broad assertions that have not overcome own existential quandaries regarding fundamental nature of (physical) existence, that's up to each individual scientist. Asking me to give into that sort of ignorance because of such naive assertions is, how you say, utterly ridiculous in terms of Knowledge and Reason.

Either way, God as self or as separate from self, how does one begin to establish that the existence of God is more than mere imaginative speculation?

I've already explained this above. And same holds true for perception of physical existence. One might say there's millions that hold this to be 'true' and yet if same thing is said about God, that is met with a lot of 'yeah but' type assertions.

It's not like the assertions I'm making are the first time conscious awareness has presented them openly to anyone wishing to understand. Nor do I think one would get vastly different understandings going within their own consciousness. I do think there would be definite differences that could be found, just as two scientists might argue over 'objective' differences of phenomenon. But ultimately, a lot of this comes down to 'what is this for.' And at that level, it is lots of personal, self justified but highly speculative justifications as to what makes for meaningful criteria and determinations of 'advancement.' IOW, I don't benefit personally from discussions / assertions about origins of the universe and life as we know it (in physical existence). I entertain them, and they entertain me. But without making rather huge leaps, they tend not to benefit my daily life or greater understandings of my being. When I first was transforming from agnostic to theist, I was very much hung up on this type of question. But given the parameters of how I routinely see it being discussed, it is not the ways in which I would even speculate, nor do I see much of that serving purpose of greater understanding. But that, I do identify, is on me and if for another it is their 'purpose for living' or 'how they find their livelihood,' I do my best to refrain from judging that either way (positively or negatively). If anything, it strikes me as awesome that there is so much wonder in our collective consciousness to entertain such paths.

Again... how do you know that the union of "God and Self" is a reality beyond the confines of human imagination? It's one thing to conceptualize physical reality as analogous to a dream, and entirely another thing to factually know that this is the case.

I've experienced union of God and Self in acute way, and then routinely (read as daily) get glimpses (for lack of a better word) of that union. For me, God equals Love. When I had acute awareness of the union, there were a number of things that have stuck with me to this moment, and from the perspective of "I sure as heck feel separate from this notion of God, whatever that vague concept means" it is challenging to put those in what I would call proper perspective. Like one thing that I quickly understood during union was it is literally the perspective that is underlying reality (with a little r) all the time. As if, I've always known it. On the other side of that awareness, it shows up as "I have no idea what that union is like, if its possible and I highly doubt anyone alive (ever) does." Which is another thing that was crystal clear to me, that everyone does know this. Such that even from the ignorant mindset, it makes as much sense to me to assume everyone does know union with God right now than personal assumption that concludes no one does, because I'm self determining that is the how things are in this world. For all anyone knows, full union is happening or already has and essentially we are all waiting on you (or me) for it to be complete. All this is how I speculate from ignorance. From union perspective, it was a knowing or self evident that regardless of how things may appear to my physical eyes, all are "in the know." These 2 things along with the exponentially increasing joy factor are my hugest takeaways from my experience that lasted at least 3 weeks and up to 3 months. But I also recall experiences of being able to heal anyone at any time as if that was literally no problem. One might think that would be the hugest takeaway from such an experience, but it really wasn't cause, I think of how "natural" and "knowledge" were put in what I'd call proper perspective. I didn't see it as I need to physically be present for healing to occur, and yet did understand that this is how I am plausibly being perceived and so "why not." Every single instant of every single waking moment was me welcoming the moment as a wonderful opportunity to share / grow joy. In my less conscious awareness, I have many instances during the day of not looking forward to something that is on my daily schedule and looking more forward to other things. As if I am best judge of what will make me happy and what won't. Anyway, I feel I've said enough and yet don't mind bringing up more. I do factually know physical existence is unreal, but besides telling one to go within to what I identify as spiritual awareness, I admit it is challenging to use physical existence to suggest physical existence is unreal. Same holds true in a night dream. Would be very challenging for a character in a night dream to convince me that I'm dreaming, though I'd probably be much more convinced if I had (self determined) awareness that I am in fact dreaming.