"Lack of belief"

[Acim]

Then you admit that you can not discern the difference between ideas you merely imagined from ideas you subjectively believe to be true? That faith, or wishful thinking, is your only means for deciding what you deem to be real?

This doesn't follow from what you quoted. I provided 4 ideas, about thinking, regarding plausible existence as to how understanding works. That you feel your ideas about thinking overcome assumptions / faith is interesting. You've done zero to show it, and instead use appeals to essentially false authority as attempt to overcome what is quite obvious a bias. All your assertions about 'me' (or your idea of me) are subjective conjecture.

As already explained, reality is defined as what is actually existent, and as existent independently of what is thought about it. Physical reality fits the bill.

It does not. You are not, thus far, showing this via reason. You are stating it, assuming it. You are not providing rationale to back up your assertions. You could just as well be saying, "2+2=5" and call that reality, that is objectively known. Asked to explain this, and you would resort to, because it is reality, and objectively known. That is how you are presenting your rationale thus far.

However unreal you might find elephants, when one steps on your toe there are bad and very real consequences to your toe. I'm sure it occurs to you what those consequences might entail because I am sure you understand that getting your toe stepped on by an elephant is a very real and painful phenomenon, which occurs independently from what you think about it.

Such a claim doesn't make sense. Not even a little bit. You are suggesting that pain (and my personal experience with it) is what establishes the phenomenon as independent from my thinking. What it would actually confirm is the subjective conjecture I assume to be true about me, is plausibly going to have certain, perceived real consequences about 'me.' Such that any pain experienced in a night dream would therefore be how we know all things within that dream are real and not fantasy. As that example continues to work with what you keep trying to make points with, it also shows that this continues to come back to perception of self, perception of 'observer' who is attempting to determine 'reality.' And thus far in all examples you've brought up, they are littered with idea, from human consciousness, about what is 'observable.' While ignoring the role that self perception is clearly playing in all your hypotheticals.

Claiming it to be unreal is to claim that you could experience no pain whatsoever in such a scenario with mental imagery perhaps, or that your toe could get out of that unscathed by the power of your mind (as in when controlling a dream), or a host of other things.

Depending on what you mean by "host of other things" then this would open up many avenues besides a) I perceive myself to be a body, or in a body and b) I will therefore feel what this body feels and c) there is no escape from pain other than what the physical existence provides as means to overcome illness / pain. By any measure, night dream or not, the pain will be temporary, so appearance of controlling that would be challenging to discern, I think (or know from past experience of thinking ultimate reality is physical) from the perspective that equates healing with physical occurrences (only). Could lose part of the body during this hypothetical you are bringing up. Lots of pain could then be experienced in the moment with self identifying with that body, all of which would be temporary. That, I'm sure you do not dispute, but unless your conjecture is going out on a limb, you'd know that healing will be from the mind foremost, and have ability to change / influence (I'd say determine) the physical recovery process. Such that all pain will eventually be controlled, read as eliminated.

For you to think that I have not contemplated the pain experience in my understandings of what is real and what is not is naive. Truly naive. As I sit here typing, I can double-check any discomforts my body is currently experiencing to see if what I felt as pain yesterday still has remnants of that today. I can recall a myriad of things related to each discomfort/feelings of pain from the physical existence I experience, as to 'how did this occur to me.' Some of that does matter to me, but not in way I believe you are trying to get across. For that I do not see as cause of the effect I am experiencing (discomfort). I honestly would have to go back to mindset I associate with ignorance for me to entertain pain at that level of understanding. I see the cause as clearly from my mind, and perception of myself. And everything about the sensation of pain/discomfort only confirms that, yet scapegoating via ignorance would perhaps have me entertain otherwise. That it's not me as cause, but something outside of me that did this to me. Or more like is continuing to have this experience of pain done to me. Honestly just writing "discomforts my body is currently experiencing" is ignorance in my book. Thought of changing that, but in explaining such things, it is perhaps better to start from place of assumed ignorance. Had I typed that up in way that makes more sense to me, I would've said, "As I perceive myself sitting here utilizing my body to type this, I am able to check on discomforts that my mind interprets as still occurring with my own physical existence." I do actually see that checking (and double-checking) as a way of controlling the pain. A poor way, but still a form of control, really.

Controlling the pain/discomfort is what is most pertinent to your hypothetical and my alluding to personal discomfort I am experiencing. Ultimately, I do see it as letting go to eliminate it. Along the way there may be a myriad of things I will try, all of which I do understand to be faith based (mind overcoming matter). Some of that could very much benefit from medical knowledge (i.e. doctor) to facilitate healing, but all of that would be based on faith, with regards to controlling pain. Faith with understanding would heal the pain. Faith with wisdom will eliminate it.

Wisdom on the front end would have likely avoided situation where elephant stepping on toe is the experience, but in the hypothetical, what need do we have for wisdom?

In short, in claiming that physical existence is unreal, you are claiming that physical existence is entirely dependent on the mind, which is demonstrably untrue.

You have yet to present anything that suggests otherwise.

And whose mind at that? Yours? Mine? Do you believe I am a figment of your imagination, "typing" back at you? That a phantom of your mind is reading this post right now, or typing a response to it? If I imagine a banana will appear in my hand, and if you simultaneously imagine an apple will appear in the same hand, which one appears? Or do both appear?

I would bet money than neither appears... not merely because we are thinking about them appearing, at least. Why not? Because unlike in a dream which depends on the mind alone, physical reality operates independently of our minds.

In a shared existence, it is clear that our individual minds are not what is governing consciousness. Instead, there is a higher consciousness at work, aka God. Or for those not able to make the self evident leap, we can go with intersubjectivity.

 

[Acim]

I said: "Your idea of "Divine Self" is an assumption, a belief."

Can you prove me wrong, or are you just playing word games?

I can. Whether or not you admit to such, would be a matter of whether you choose to play word games.

Can you prove your alleged observation is not 'merely an idea' or an assumption?

 

[Kartari]

Acim,

Just to follow up, as I am not interested in debating this any further... it's clear to me that you are either not able, or not allowing, yourself to see what I am actually stating. Probably not allowing, as you seem like an intelligent fellow, though bias can afflict us all. I am satisfied that I made a very clear case that physicality fits the definition of reality. But I foresee that this debate will go back and forth with us talking past each other ad infinitum.

Best wishes, and see you around.

 

[Acim]

Acim,

Just to follow up, as I am not interested in debating this any further... it's clear to me that you are either not able, or not allowing, yourself to see what I am actually stating. Probably not allowing, as you seem like an intelligent fellow, though bias can afflict us all. I am satisfied that I made a very clear case that physicality fits the definition of reality. But I foresee that this debate will go back and forth with us talking past each other ad infinitum.

Best wishes, and see you around.

I quoted and squarely addressed what you said, providing as much detail as I think I could. To assume I have bias and you don't is interesting, but I honestly see it as hypocrisy and your version of concession. As long as you believe you honestly made the case clear, then I agree there is not much more you can do. I observe the case you made did not clarify physical existence as reality. I'm still going to assert that you are basing such a claim on fundamental faith and/or a vast assumption.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

I quoted and squarely addressed what you said, providing as much detail as I think I could.

Actually, you have not. Though you may believe you have.

To assume I have bias and you don't is interesting, but I honestly see it as hypocrisy and your version of concession.

I never claimed to be without bias. You have made a number of other incorrect assumptions about what I wrote...

As long as you believe you honestly made the case clear, then I agree there is not much more you can do. I observe the case you made did not clarify physical existence as reality.

In one of your posts, you claimed I was merely stating physicality was real instead of showing how... and in the very next quoted text of mine, I provided the very thing you complained I didn't do. Which you then entirely missed, and further misconstrued my entire point with...

But I'll stop there, as it's not fair of me to continue this without devoting the proper time to it. Sorry, but I really do not have the time to unravel all this. I would have to spend hours going through all your posts at this point...

I'm still going to assert that you are basing such a claim on fundamental faith and/or a vast assumption.

Believe what you will and good luck.

 

[Willamena]

So, in other words, you believe we can find what is real by subjective conjecture?

Conjecture cannot, by definition, form a conclusion. Whatever you're referring to, it isn't conjecture.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Willamena,

Conjecture cannot, by definition, form a conclusion. Whatever you're referring to, it isn't conjecture.

Agreed. Now tell that to Acim.

 

[Willamena]

Hi Willamena,



Agreed. Now tell that to Acim.

Why?

I addressed my post to you.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Willamena,

Because your point, that conjecture does not lead to conclusions, is the same point I was going to make to Acim. The post you quoted of mine was just my own paraphrasing of what Acim had written.

 

[Acim]

Hi Willamena,

Because your point, that conjecture does not lead to conclusions, is the same point I was going to make to Acim. The post you quoted of mine was just my own paraphrasing of what Acim had written.

Of which I think was a poor paraphrasing. And so I do think Willamena's inquiry is best directed to you.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

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?

I do not have a firm belief in a godless universe or in materialism.

I just happen to follow those models in my every day life because I find them more probable due to process of elimination.

If I found evidence to the contrary than I would change my viewpoint.

So I would ask you if you have a reason to discount a godless universe and materialism as possibilities.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

Of which I think was a poor paraphrasing. And so I do think Willamena's inquiry is best directed to you.

Okay, I'm willing to try this one more time.

You wrote the following:

The Divine Self within me / you / us (all consciousness) qualifies what points to actual existence and what points to illusions. None of them are necessary (the pointers) for such qualifications to be realized. Nothing perceived as outside of you will (perfectly) explain Who You Are, and purpose for being here, according to Divine Purpose. By going within, via contemplation, insight, intuition, reason, logic, creativity, understanding, meditation, prayer (and more), will you find (perfect) explanation.

I replied the following:

So, in other words, you believe we can find what is real by subjective conjecture?

Please explain how my own paraphrasing of your above post is poor in your view. Because you appear to me to be doing exactly what I wrote. As I see it, as soon as I read "The Divine Self...," you began subjectively conjecturing about reality; that is, drawing on subjective notions indistinguishable from imagined ideas to posit what is real.

 

[Acim]

Please explain how my own paraphrasing of your above post is poor in your view. Because you appear to me to be doing exactly what I wrote. As I see it, as soon as I read "The Divine Self...," you began subjectively conjecturing about reality; that is, drawing on subjective notions indistinguishable from imagined ideas to posit what is real.

I would say poor, because subjective conjecture would then (equally) apply to (my words of): contemplation, reasoning, logic and understanding. The conjecture part, I pretty much see no way around. IMO, same holds true for mathematics. The subjective part is where I feel you are poorly paraphrasing what I conveyed.

After asking earlier question, that I answered (with referenced to Divine Self), you then attempted to say that is subjective conceptualization. Even though previously, I stated: "There's actually plenty of proof of spiritual knowledge in this world. Plenty of divine realizations written down, spoken about, or otherwise communicated."

I do get that "Divine Self" wording may not work for you, but IMO, that is where 'subjective conjecture' is actually entering the picture. Would be like if you made assertion of 'objective fact' and whatever that assertion referenced (i.e. gravity), I could then say, "you lost me when you mentioned gravity which is entirely subjective as far as I'm concerned." I'm not sure if you'll grasp what I'm getting at with this additional paragraph, but doing my best to help explain how I see it as poor paraphrasing.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not have a firm belief in a godless universe or in materialism.
I just happen to follow those models in my every day life because I find them more probable due to process of elimination.
If I found evidence to the contrary than I would change my viewpoint.
So I would ask you if you have a reason to discount a godless universe and materialism as possibilities.

"I do not have a firm belief in a godless universe"
Rather one should believe in the Universe created by G-d with the word "to be" under systematic natural processes that are at work and would stop when He says "not to be". Right? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"I do not have a firm belief in a godless universe"
Rather one should believe in the Universe created by G-d with the word "to be" under systematic natural processes that are at work and would stop when He says "not to be". Right? Please
Regards

None else could either create the Universe or finish it. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

I would say poor, because subjective conjecture would then (equally) apply to (my words of): contemplation, reasoning, logic and understanding. The conjecture part, I pretty much see no way around. IMO, same holds true for mathematics. The subjective part is where I feel you are poorly paraphrasing what I conveyed.

Are you saying that you believe mathematics is mere conjecture?

After asking earlier question, that I answered (with referenced to Divine Self), you then attempted to say that is subjective conceptualization. Even though previously, I stated: "There's actually plenty of proof of spiritual knowledge in this world. Plenty of divine realizations written down, spoken about, or otherwise communicated."

To which I responded (something to the effect that) communicating ideas (writing them down, speaking about them, etc.), whether we opt to call them "divine realizations" or not, does not alone establish those ideas as real. What "spiritual knowledge" might you be referring to more specifically, and what proof is there of it?

I do get that "Divine Self" wording may not work for you, but IMO, that is where 'subjective conjecture' is actually entering the picture. Would be like if you made assertion of 'objective fact' and whatever that assertion referenced (i.e. gravity), I could then say, "you lost me when you mentioned gravity which is entirely subjective as far as I'm concerned." I'm not sure if you'll grasp what I'm getting at with this additional paragraph, but doing my best to help explain how I see it as poor paraphrasing.

I gather you are trying to say that your phrasing of "Divine Self," on the basis that it "may not work for [me]," therefore falls into the realm of subjective conjecture on my part rather than your part. Is this what you are trying to say?

 

[Acim]

Hi Acim,



Are you saying that you believe mathematics is mere conjecture?

Again, you're not really addressing what I conveyed. My last assertion in what you quoted was: "The subjective part is where I feel you are poorly paraphrasing what I conveyed."

And yet, you chose to ask me about the conjecture part.

In some instances, yes certainly math is conjecture, but the whole "mere" aspect is on you.

To which I responded (something to the effect that) communicating ideas (writing them down, speaking about them, etc.), whether we opt to call them "divine realizations" or not, does not alone establish those ideas as real.

Actually, that's not how your responded. You instead asked the question "how can we know that your ideas are not merely ideas but reflect an actual reality?" rather than assuming it does not alone establish those ideas as real. I see the latter as changing the goalposts.

The thing with "spiritual ideas" as I'm aware of that term, is that they literally constitute every idea conceivable, including mathematics and science. Whether or not every spiritual believer ascribes to that notion is part of what I feel constitutes "spiritual realization."

Your constant use of the word "merely" strikes me (consistently) as you trying to downplay whatever I come up with as along the lines of "only pertaining to you" but is not how I see spiritual realizations EVER working. Heck, just the way I wrote that last sentence strikes me as likely rebuttal from you along lines of "shall we discern reality merely on how you see things?"

I was debating you on notion of things that "objectively exist" and trying to pin you on things you (merely) think objectively exist (as fact), but is around the time when you decided to bow out. So, either you are able to come back to that and answer things I asked, or your version of "objectively exists" is merely your imagination. It likely is the latter regardless of how you respond, but I'll let you speak to that and we'll see if you can truly show anything that exists beyond the confines of ideas / consciousness.

What "spiritual knowledge" might you be referring to more specifically, and what proof is there of it?

To me, this is a bit like asking about "mathematical knowledge" and what proof is there of it. For surely, that doesn't exist in a perceptual way in our world, but as a way of understanding the world. Perhaps understanding it more accurately than our perception can ever grasp. And as stated earlier, I do see spiritual knowledge as embracing all conceivable ideas (including math and science), but that certain realizations would put that in different perspectives. Which perspectives are better or worse, is I believe subjective, but I don't think it is 'merely' subjective, nor inherently. It's more just me providing allowance to not assume I have supreme awareness of all conceivable ideas and how they fit within the whole. I do think there is 'better' and 'worse' perspectives, but is where I think going within is best guide for each and everyone. And as such, I do think agreement among countless number of people can occur.

To be a bit more direct, I'll share some spiritual realizations based on 'knowledge' that I've come up with and provide as much proof as I think is warranted.

Now is an eternal event. It (now) is an example of how we can come to know, or understand, eternity exists. It is technically the only moment in time that actually exists (I would say objectively). Understanding now as aspect of eternity is not readily provable given the nature of eternity. If you, or anyone, truly experiences a moment that is not now, it would be evidence that now is not eternal. Memories of yesterday/past or thoughts of history are always experienced now.

All thoughts/ideas about anything perceived as outside of own consciousness are given entire meaning by own consciousness. Due to perceptual order (i.e. that a physical world appears to exist), it may be perceived that the ideas are shared with or by others, who are also given their meaning they have for you by own consciousness AND God. The "and God" part may go unrealized indefinitely for as long as "world outside of me" is perceive as the only reality that actually exists. Hence why meditation, contemplation and prayer may be helpful, depending on what the experience of the observer is desired. The aim with those tools is to pause on own thinking for as long as may be desired (now) to experience other ideas that are clearly within you, but not necessarily of you (alone).

I gather you are trying to say that your phrasing of "Divine Self," on the basis that it "may not work for [me]," therefore falls into the realm of subjective conjecture on my part rather than your part. Is this what you are trying to say?

Yes, but I did say it. I find it interesting how you constantly paraphrase, and either add in things or if you state the same things in other words you then add in "what you are trying to say" as if the person can't communicate without your (ahem, cough cough) 'proper' phrasing.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

Again, you're not really addressing what I conveyed. My last assertion in what you quoted was: "The subjective part is where I feel you are poorly paraphrasing what I conveyed."

And yet, you chose to ask me about the conjecture part.

In some instances, yes certainly math is conjecture, but the whole "mere" aspect is on you.

If you call something conjecture, the "mere" is implied. Stating "Math is conjecture" implies "ALL math is conjecture." My query was intended to clarify that point, as it was an unusual point for someone to make (to say the least).

As for not addressing everything that you conveyed, that was on purpose. I am choosing to respond to the more pressing or striking points you make, for now. Honestly, I don't have the time to get into nitpicking minor points. My main interests here are (a) countering your claim that physical reality is not real and (b) seeing if you are able to demonstrate your spiritual reality is actually real.

Actually, that's not how your responded. You instead asked the question "how can we know that your ideas are not merely ideas but reflect an actual reality?" rather than assuming it does not alone establish those ideas as real. I see the latter as changing the goalposts.

I wrote both, in fact.

The thing with "spiritual ideas" as I'm aware of that term, is that they literally constitute every idea conceivable, including mathematics and science. Whether or not every spiritual believer ascribes to that notion is part of what I feel constitutes "spiritual realization."

Part of the problem in our discussion is in the vagueness of how you use words, or iow in the discrepancies between formal word definitions and your usage of certain terms. I would not assume that math and science are spiritual ideas, for instance, nor assume you had that in mind. Indeed, I have wondered what exactly we are debating all along; I am not certain that we are actually debating the same things.

Your constant use of the word "merely" strikes me (consistently) as you trying to downplay whatever I come up with as along the lines of "only pertaining to you" but is not how I see spiritual realizations EVER working. Heck, just the way I wrote that last sentence strikes me as likely rebuttal from you along lines of "shall we discern reality merely on how you see things?"

Despite your disapproval of the term subjective, I continue to see no reason to regard your process as anything but. But when I ask you to demonstrate the reality of your spiritual ideas beyond the "mere" confines of the human imagination for instance, it's not that I intend to downplay your beliefs. Rather, I am seeking to emphasize that, in fact, there is no real means to discern such spiritual ideas as real, as far as we can tell.

I was debating you on notion of things that "objectively exist" and trying to pin you on things you (merely) think objectively exist (as fact), but is around the time when you decided to bow out. So, either you are able to come back to that and answer things I asked, or your version of "objectively exists" is merely your imagination. It likely is the latter regardless of how you respond, but I'll let you speak to that and we'll see if you can truly show anything that exists beyond the confines of ideas / consciousness.

I posted a while back how I defined reality, and also posted a slew of examples of real objects. Reality simply is what is. Though interpretations may be subjective, facts themselves are real. Facts are what they are, information which describes reality independently of what we think about it. Facts are real, regardless of our ideas about them. Demonstrating our ideas to be real is therefore a matter of showing that our ideas match what objectively is the case.

Demonstrating the reality of gravity is a matter of dropping a physical object, for instance. Demonstrating the reality of this web forum is a matter of typing religiousforums.com in your web browser of choice and hitting Enter (or Return). Demonstrating the reality of your computer... I could go on and on, but this is simply absurd, frankly.

Basically, in order to win the debate on the unreality of physicality, you will need to show how such physical objects and forces do not function independently of your own mind. Good luck.

To me, this is a bit like asking about "mathematical knowledge" and what proof is there of it. For surely, that doesn't exist in a perceptual way in our world, but as a way of understanding the world. Perhaps understanding it more accurately than our perception can ever grasp. And as stated earlier, I do see spiritual knowledge as embracing all conceivable ideas (including math and science), but that certain realizations would put that in different perspectives. Which perspectives are better or worse, is I believe subjective, but I don't think it is 'merely' subjective, nor inherently. It's more just me providing allowance to not assume I have supreme awareness of all conceivable ideas and how they fit within the whole. I do think there is 'better' and 'worse' perspectives, but is where I think going within is best guide for each and everyone. And as such, I do think agreement among countless number of people can occur.

Math is shown to be real by the fact it can be demonstrated to work. We learned this in the first grade, for heaven's sake... 2+2=4. When you hold two sticks and pick up two more sticks, when do you ever see not four sticks altogether?! If you don't do your math correctly, you won't be able to accurately count your money in the bank, predict the positions of planets and other celestial bodies in the solar system, or build a car that doesn't fall apart or blow up as you try to do so.

I certainly agree about allowing for the fact we don't know everything. But I think this discussion (defining words as I do, at least) is not concerned with this. Rather, this is a discussion on the reality of physicality and the demonstration of your spiritual ideas as real.

I also agree about looking within, though for different reasons. I do not believe that my mind creates the world, or that the world exists because many minds concurrently happen to believe in the same world. There is zero evidence that this is real... or if you think otherwise, perhaps you can share a demonstration of how this works in reality? You will also need to account for the plethora of evidence against this: account for everything that seems to exist and operate in physical reality entirely independently of your thoughts (i.e. gravity, elephants, cars, etc.).

To be a bit more direct, I'll share some spiritual realizations based on 'knowledge' that I've come up with and provide as much proof as I think is warranted.

Now is an eternal event. It (now) is an example of how we can come to know, or understand, eternity exists. It is technically the only moment in time that actually exists (I would say objectively). Understanding now as aspect of eternity is not readily provable given the nature of eternity. If you, or anyone, truly experiences a moment that is not now, it would be evidence that now is not eternal. Memories of yesterday/past or thoughts of history are always experienced now.

I agree, actually. There is indeed only evidence for the existence of the present moment. The past is done, the future is not yet done.

All thoughts/ideas about anything perceived as outside of own consciousness are given entire meaning by own consciousness. Due to perceptual order (i.e. that a physical world appears to exist), it may be perceived that the ideas are shared with or by others, who are also given their meaning they have for you by own consciousness AND God. The "and God" part may go unrealized indefinitely for as long as "world outside of me" is perceive as the only reality that actually exists. Hence why meditation, contemplation and prayer may be helpful, depending on what the experience of the observer is desired. The aim with those tools is to pause on own thinking for as long as may be desired (now) to experience other ideas that are clearly within you, but not necessarily of you (alone).

Hypothetically, it could be the case for all we know. That much I can grant you.

Where I differ from you, though, is... how can anyone show this to be real rather than merely hypothesize about it? Yep, there's that word again, merely. Lol. Or as I put it earlier, how can this be shown to be real beyond the confines of the human imagination? Mind you, this is not intended as a downplay, but... to put it another way, can anyone actually show how this is actually real, as opposed to being nothing more than a human mind thinking thoughts about what could potentially be real?

Spiritual people may get offended by analogies like the one I'm about to use. But to my perspective, I really see absolutely no difference between stating, "God and human minds co-create a perceived reality," and, just a for instance, "Invisible unicorns and faeries really exist and create the love in our hearts." In both cases, we can only evince that such ideas really exist only within the confines of the human imagination. Meaning, as ideas they are real. We know that we can imagine such things as if they were real, but cannot show them to really exist independently of our imaginations.

Suggesting that meditation, contemplation, and prayer may help, at best, continues to beg the same question. In essence, it sounds like you're basically saying that if you think of interesting ideas like, "God and human minds co-create a perceived world," that merely continuing to contemplate such ideas even more can prove they are real. This does not work. Contemplation and prayer are basically nothing more than mental exercises, as far as we can tell. Meditation, while perhaps in the same ballpark (depending on how it's used), for me (as a Buddhist) is a way to release wrong views and attachments in a psychological sense, but if used with the expectation that it can lead to objective knowledge... such a thing can be shown to be untrue. For instance, just look at all the murderous Islamist extremists who use prayer to guide them into believing their actions are justified and good in God's eyes.

Yes, but I did say it. I find it interesting how you constantly paraphrase, and either add in things or if you state the same things in other words you then add in "what you are trying to say" as if the person can't communicate without your (ahem, cough cough) 'proper' phrasing.

I do not paraphrase to change, but to find a better way to define what I think you are saying in order to assure accuracy in our communications. You have used several terms that deviate from standard meanings thus far in this debate (i.e. viewing science and math as spiritual knowledge). Indeed, I still have yet to see you define what you think the term "reality" means?

 

[Acim]

If you call something conjecture, the "mere" is implied.

Disagree. Based on definition of "mere." But if actually implied, then no need to state it.

Stating "Math is conjecture" implies "ALL math is conjecture."

Disagree. Possible, reasonable rebuttal to "math is conjecture" is "in what ways do you see math as conjecture?" As if the person making the assertion can reasonably only cite certain instances of math they've encountered, while unreasonable to assume they've encountered ALL math.

My main interests here are (a) countering your claim that physical reality is not real and (b) seeing if you are able to demonstrate your spiritual reality is actually real.

Sounds good, but would just stipulate it as 'our spiritual reality.' Or seems as fair as you trying to address whether my (specific) physical reality is real.

when I ask you to demonstrate the reality of your spiritual ideas beyond the "mere" confines of the human imagination for instance, it's not that I intend to downplay your beliefs. Rather, I am seeking to emphasize that, in fact, there is no real means to discern such spiritual ideas as real, as far as we can tell.

And I argue that with intersubjectivity, there is means to discern spiritual ideas as real.

I posted a while back how I defined reality, and also posted a slew of examples of real objects.

Objects that are given their entire meaning and assertions of 'what they are' by conjecture.

Reality simply is what is.

Hey, we agree on something!

Though interpretations may be subjective, facts themselves are real. Facts are what they are, information which describes reality independently of what we think about it. Facts are real, regardless of our ideas about them. Demonstrating our ideas to be real is therefore a matter of showing that our ideas match what objectively is the case.

Demonstrating the reality of gravity is a matter of dropping a physical object, for instance. Demonstrating the reality of this web forum is a matter of typing religiousforums.com in your web browser of choice and hitting Enter (or Return). Demonstrating the reality of your computer... I could go on and on, but this is simply absurd, frankly.

All this rests on conjecture. As absurd as it is, it is what we are working from, or with.

Basically, in order to win the debate on the unreality of physicality, you will need to show how such physical objects and forces do not function independently of your own mind. Good luck.

And in order for you to establish that physical reality exists objectively, you will need to not rely on any human conceptions (feelings or opinions) of that so called existence. Objectivity meaning: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Math is shown to be real by the fact it can be demonstrated to work. We learned this in the first grade, for heaven's sake... 2+2=4. When you hold two sticks and pick up two more sticks, when do you ever see not four sticks altogether?! If you don't do your math correctly, you won't be able to accurately count your money in the bank, predict the positions of planets and other celestial bodies in the solar system, or build a car that doesn't fall apart or blow up as you try to do so.

Math can work incorrectly and the physical existence will function just fine 'as is.' But nothing in the physical will necessarily reflect an existence of math being present. It's an overlay, and a way to understand something about the physical that is based on human conjecture, about that existence. I can imagine any fictional narrative, other than physical existence, and show how mathematics applies to that world. Thus math transcends the physical and is not necessarily based on it, or in it.

I do not believe that my mind creates the world, or that the world exists because many minds concurrently happen to believe in the same world. There is zero evidence that this is real... or if you think otherwise, perhaps you can share a demonstration of how this works in reality? You will also need to account for the plethora of evidence against this: account for everything that seems to exist and operate in physical reality entirely independently of your thoughts (i.e. gravity, elephants, cars, etc.).

I do not see how it is possible to exist independently of thoughts. What you keep coming back to is suggesting that I think of the debate on reality as solely a solipsism consideration. And even with that, I think you are explicitly asserting that my position is an individual, isolated type process. That I alone think my thoughts are all that is manifesting existence. I honestly can see how one might arrive at that conclusion, but is not what I believe. I see it as a "we" thing, and is the area where my allusion to night dreaming falls apart. Not completely, but enough that I am challenged to filter how thoughts influence reality for everyone, as I imagine there are vastly different degrees of awareness on how that operates.

 

[Acim]

I agree, actually. There is indeed only evidence for the existence of the present moment. The past is done, the future is not yet done.

I'm actually surprised you agree with this, given all other assertion, just within the post I'm quoting from. Like, I could see an argument put forth that says all physical phenomenon that currently exists is showing (us) that the past exists. And arguing such that the present may not actually exist for all we are actually able to see is moment(s) that came before 'now.' Almost all of our language and I believe overwhelming majority of our science is based on phenomenon existing in the past. Like, even if we did an experiment 'now,' it would be based on observations that are (nano)seconds old, as they are occurring.

How we identify all (physical) phenomenon is based on past associations. Such that when you say "gravity, elephants and cars" all exist objectively, all of this is based on past associations (thoughts). To think they exist (precisely) now, would rely on observations that are (nano)seconds behind 'now.' That an elephant is not a car and a car is not an elephant is based on past associations and all such evidence that would try to make this clear would be based on past associations.

To overcome what I see as inherent problem in proving now (actually) exists would mean not relying on ANYTHING in the physical world, particularly not physical observations by human minds. Instead, it would rely on abstracts found by going within, or 'away' from reliance on the physical.

Where I differ from you, though, is... how can anyone show this to be real rather than merely hypothesize about it? Yep, there's that word again, merely. Lol. Or as I put it earlier, how can this be shown to be real beyond the confines of the human imagination? Mind you, this is not intended as a downplay, but... to put it another way, can anyone actually show how this is actually real, as opposed to being nothing more than a human mind thinking thoughts about what could potentially be real?

The "confines of the human imagination" is something I'm consistently taking as you intentionally downplaying (certain) ideas as not actually existing. My dictionary's primary definition says imagination is: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. Whereas I see you using it more along lines of secondary definition: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. And even with the secondary one, I think you are downplaying it beyond that, to essentially equate it with 'fictional.'

I see all (human) ideas about the physical as "human imagination." But particularly whole endeavors like: religion, philosophy, science. The first two are far more concerned with the existential questions, the last one, science feels that the assumption of it existing is all that (really) matters. Though that would be debatable as gravity, in and of itself, is not observable through senses, other than to assume the results (in physical phenomenon) is perceived by the senses. I see such points as incredibly easy to take for granted because of desire to go with what works, rather than get hung up on what amounts to absurd considerations for what is questionable in such assertions. Philosophy relishes on getting hung up, and fully exploring the absurdity. Religion/spirituality takes notice of the absurdity and interjects a (supreme) authority to invoke a sense of "what will work."

I do find that part of the absurdity is realization of the semantics at work in all such descriptions. Like whatever you call gravity, another may call God. And have it that God applies to more than what you reference gravity as applicable to. Not so semantical if you judge that what you call gravity is actually the exact same consideration/abstract concept that the other is referencing as God, AND you are accepting of them calling it God. But very semantical if you make same judgment and assert that calling it God is 'improper.' I specifically chose a loaded term (God) because I do think it helps understand the absurdity of which I'm trying to convey about semantics, rather than write off the idea to notion that if I call it 'boogaloo' and you call it 'gravity' that it really doesn't matter if it references the same thing.

To me, it really doesn't matter what we call 'it' but at times I'll act like it matters and that there is proper terminology that we all agree on to make for easier communication. That sort of justification, as much as I like to believe it is helpful, is actually closer to absurdity. Cause the 'it' pronoun that I keep tossing around in these last 2 paragraphs, just as well applies to 'reality' as it does 'gravity' and is how I've been conceiving of some phrasings in the last 2 paragraphs.

I'd rather not get hung up on semantics, but also don't know of way around that when certain concepts are being discussed, such as reality, existence, phenomenon, facts. If tossing in 'the physical' and assuming that is THE basis for how we can go about discussing what is real, existing, factual, I'm likely to have red flags go up in perhaps same way you might if I were to suggest THE basis for discussing real, existence, factual is understanding The Divine Self/God.

Spiritual people may get offended by analogies like the one I'm about to use. But to my perspective, I really see absolutely no difference between stating, "God and human minds co-create a perceived reality," and, just a for instance, "Invisible unicorns and faeries really exist and create the love in our hearts." In both cases, we can only evince that such ideas really exist only within the confines of the human imagination. Meaning, as ideas they are real. We know that we can imagine such things as if they were real, but cannot show them to really exist independently of our imaginations.

Whereas, I'm going to hyper scrutinize what you mean by "real" and how you are actually using the term "imagination." If someone wishes to tell me, "Invisible unicorns and faeries really exist and create the love in our hearts," I'm generally like, "okay. So what?" And as you're the one coming up with this (though clearly downplaying it), I'll let you answer the 'so what' as much as may be desired, even hypothetically.

Yet, getting back to basis of this thread, I don't see it as 'lacking a belief' in invisible unicorns and faeries' as much as 'so what' for atheist types. For I think the (honest) atheist realizes the idea is 'real' once it is conceived, but of what concern are these to me/us in what one wishes to say about them? Depending on the phrasing of answers to that, I do think it can be a matter of semantics playing out. Cause in my observation/understandings, science relies on a whole lot of 'invisible unicorns and fairies' but calls them something other than unicorns and fairies. And proceeds to tell me/us a whole lot of things that could conceivably impact me, though most of the time I'm like "so what." Like 'dark matter' as example off top of my head.

Suggesting that meditation, contemplation, and prayer may help, at best, continues to beg the same question. In essence, it sounds like you're basically saying that if you think of interesting ideas like, "God and human minds co-create a perceived world," that merely continuing to contemplate such ideas even more can prove they are real. This does not work. Contemplation and prayer are basically nothing more than mental exercises, as far as we can tell. Meditation, while perhaps in the same ballpark (depending on how it's used), for me (as a Buddhist) is a way to release wrong views and attachments in a psychological sense, but if used with the expectation that it can lead to objective knowledge... such a thing can be shown to be untrue. For instance, just look at all the murderous Islamist extremists who use prayer to guide them into believing their actions are justified and good in God's eyes.

All thinking processes are mental exercises. Math and science are mental exercises. It's the 'so what' that I see you addressing.

I see meditation doing what you are saying it does (for you), but also doing other things for the mind/thinker. I do think one of those things is getting as close to objective knowledge as is possible in the physical. But to perhaps make that more reasonable as a consideration, I would say a 'meditative mindset' is perhaps what I'm referring to rather than thinking of the ritual of meditation. I actually, truly believe, scientific method utilizes meditative mindset during experimentation and analysis, at least when its done well.

I do not paraphrase to change, but to find a better way to define what I think you are saying in order to assure accuracy in our communications. You have used several terms that deviate from standard meanings thus far in this debate (i.e. viewing science and math as spiritual knowledge). Indeed, I still have yet to see you define what you think the term "reality" means?

I think reality means existing eternally (or without end). I think what is really existing cannot be threatened, and what is unreal (appears to exist, but understood as having an end) does not (actually) exist.