Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[godnotgod]

The first hand experience I was referring to was not internal (fail to see the rationale behind being internal makes it more valid) but it was personal, while the other was judged by someone who has never witnessed the crime in question.

There is some confusion here. Your original question was:

"Ok ... how come you find the statement "spiritual experiences are real" more valid than "spiritual experiences are not real"? "

The first statement would be by someone who experiences it first hand; the second by someone who has not, who is standing outside the experience and thinking about it only as an idea. A first hand experience is more valid than an assessment of the experience by someone who has never had the experience, and is looking at it in objective terms.

Please explain enlightment, and how you can prove an enlighted person is more rational and able to distunguish between true and false empirically.

I cannot 'explain' enlightenment. It is a completely wordless experience only. However, I can say that an enlightened person is no more rational than an unenlightened person, nor is he able to distinguish between true and false any better than an ordinary person, simply because the ordinary mind and the enlightened mind are one and the same. It is simply that the ordinary mind does not realize that it is already enlightened. All an enlightened person can do is to see reality as it actually is.

Do you ever make a statement with any sort of ... anything backing it up?

Your brain takes short cuts because it doesn't take the proper time to think it through. There are numerous examples of this, the birthday paradox being the best example.

Your erroneous conclusion is self-evident. Read it again. Here, also, is a good example of taking a short cut, as you explained, to reach what seems like a logical conclusion.

Empirical evidence, please. No, only more rational. I've never ever said "infallible", there's a big difference between what's best and what's perfect.

Then what's best can also be erroneous if it is not perfect. I am speaking about perfect vision. Enlightenment is perfect vision, OK?

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet, there, in the midst of all the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality".
Shunryu Suzuki, SF Zen Center

"From brilliancy I came;
to brilliancy I return.
What, then, is all this?"
A Zen Monk

 

[nrg]

T A first hand experience is more valid than an assessment of the experience by someone who has never had the experience, and is looking at it in objective terms.

Ah, ok, so a heroin addict is a better source when it comes to the dangers of drugs than a doctor?

I cannot 'explain' enlightenment. It is a completely wordless experience only.

You don't have to explain it through words, just back up that it exists at all. Otherwise, that's too bad, you can't use it as an argument if you can not back it up. Why should I turn around 180 degrees and say that you're correct, what is the empirical evidence indicating you are right?

However, I can say that an enlightened person is no more rational than an unenlightened person, nor is he able to distinguish between true and false any better than an ordinary person, simply because the ordinary mind and the enlightened mind are one and the same. It is simply that the ordinary mind does not realize that it is already enlightened. All an enlightened person can do is to see reality as it actually is.

In other words, it accepts things by blind faith.

Your erroneous conclusion is self-evident. Read it again.

I did, fail to see what you're talking about. Please, eloborate to an unenlighted, rational mind.

Here, also, is a good example of taking a short cut, as you explained, to reach what seems like a logical conclusion.

Fail to see how again. Could you explain it a little more in detail?

Then what's best can also be erroneous if it is not perfect.

Definately, but it's not enough when you say "it can be erronous", you really have to point out through logic reasoning where it is faulty. Like I do with spirutalism.

I am speaking about perfect vision. Enlightenment is perfect vision, OK?

You have to give some kind of evidence that it is perfect vision before I believe you, OK?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Superficial knowledge of God is what is called a 'belief'.

No. If it's only a belief, then it's not knowledge. Knowledge is more like "justified true belief". Superficial knowledge might be superficially true, but still true.

By making efforts to attain higher states of consciousness.

And how is this confirmation?

No. Ordinary evidence is impossible. God is part and parcel of the phenomenal world so thoroughly that you are not aware of it via of ordinary rational thought.

Wait a minute. It seems like when we're talking about looking for evidence, God is not part of the phenomenal world. Then, when we're talking about whether God affects the phenomenal world, suddenly he is part of it... and not just that but "part and parcel of it".

Which is it?

If God has physical effects, then these effects create evidence that can be observed or measured. If God creates no observable evidence, then this implies he has no physical effects.

You can't have it both ways.

You are looking for traces of God, when God leaves no trace.

Which is just what I described: a God that's either physically impotent or non-existent.

By doing so, you are saying that reality is dual, when it is not. Where do you see a difference between 'spiritual' and 'physical'?

No, I'm not doing that.

Personally, I believe that there's only the physical. I think that "spiritual" is a word we use to describe physical things. However, I recognized that it sounds like you believe in some sort of "spiritual" plane, so I tried to address that possibility in my response, because I don't really want to get spun off into a tangent on materialism.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm specifically talking about the physical. If you want to believe in some other spiritual plane where you can put God, fine. I personally don't, but I'm not really interested in bringing you to my point of view on that.

A God so determined will be a God of concept only.

Why would that be?

This is just how things work: for example, if I want to find out whether there's actually a beaver in the lodge by my house, I could go sneak some sort of video camera in to have a look. If I see a beaver, then I know my answer's "yes". This may not give me full knowledge of what it feels like to be a beaver, but it would conclusively answer the question of whether the beaver (the actual beaver, not just a "beaver of concept") exists.

You'd have nothing. You may as well capture the wind in a box. This is the problem with the ordinary mind. It tries to encapsulate the Infinite in finite terms to make it digestible and manageable. It does this in positive terms, but the nature of the Infinite can only be approached in negative terms. We can only speak about it in terms of what it is not.

Is this a general statement about the nature of all knowledge, or is it just special pleading on behalf of God alone?

 

[Willamena]

I don't know about you guys, but I believe my knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know about you guys, but I believe my knowledge.

As well you should.

But are all your beliefs knowledge?

 

[Willamena]

As well you should.

But are all your beliefs knowledge?

My knowledge, yes. There are things I accept as general knowledge and other people's knowledge in which I cannot invest belief or disbelief.

Thing is, in order to believe one has to have something to believe in. That's the knowledge.

Edit: To state it another way, there is no piece of information I believe in that isn't knowlege to me, because belief is the result of that information being acknowledged.

 

[AK4]

Maybe I'm confused about what "Buried with Christ" means, AK4.

It means alot. Hard to just pin point one thing, but basically it means being dead to this world. World meaning its teachings, doctrines, sin, rituals, religions, etc etc. Christ overcame the world when He died/was buried. We are to do the same or reckon ourselves dead to this world. Buried with Christ means being buried in Truth.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Ah, ok, so a heroin addict is a better source when it comes to the dangers of drugs than a doctor?

I would think a drug addict who has worked at becoming clean would be a far better source for the dangers of said drug than a doctor any day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would think a drug addict who has worked at becoming clean would be a far better source for the dangers of said drug than a doctor any day.

I think both would have valuable perspectives.

The drug addict may be an expert on his own experiences, but no one person experiences the totality of any subject.

The doctor may know about the physiological responses of the drug, but that won't fully tell him what it feels like to be on it. However, there are other aspects of knowledge about the drug that the doctor would probably be in a better position to know about than the addict.

The drug addict probably wouldn't have better knowledge of dying from an overdose than the doctor would, for instance. Also, the doctor would probably have better knowledge of whether the drug addict's experience was typical.

If you look at things from the perspective of asking who can teach you things that are directly applicable to your situation, I think it'd be a toss-up. At the very least, the doctor would be drawing knowledge from a large pool of subjects, while the drug addict's experience would be based on a sample size of one, and be subject to great uncertainty; isn't even large enough to calculate a standard deviation.

 

[nrg]

I would think a drug addict who has worked at becoming clean would be a far better source for the dangers of said drug than a doctor any day.

I wouldn't trust an ex-drug addict with no medical credentials over a doctor to explain how the drug makes you addicted, what parts of the body the drug attacks, what the chemical ingredients in the drug that are the most significant are or how you can measure the effect from drug to drug. I would only trust that he's better informed at what the effects feels like and how you can discover that you're being negatively impacted by the drug. In other words, one of them would be really good at making people stay away from drugs, the other one would be really good at explaining how the drugs really work.

 

[AK4]

This reply is a perfect example of religion versus the concept of Supreme Being. You are arguing not to God, but to a particular idea of God, a doctrine that fits with your religious beliefs.

No I am not an idea of God, I am arguing what the scriptures say of God/what God says of Himself. I am not interpreting what He says about Himself or trying to rationalize it. God says “all is of/from Him” therefore I have no reason to do like religions do and say something contrary to that. God says He is good. So why try to change this to fit my religious beliefs. I take it as a universal truth and then apply it to every verse of the scriptures.

You argue that God reasons; I argue that God is reason.
I don’t argue that He reasons. He knows all so why would He have to reason. Saying He has to reason demeans Him and lowers Him down to a man. God is not a man.

He cannot ‘realize things about himself’ or make promises or covenants and bind himself to his creation.

Why not? It says He does all that in the scriptures, and if it says it and its His word and “God who does not lie” says so then that is exactly what it is, making promises and covenants. If God made no promises then we, as His creation, would have nothing to hold on to or hope for and chance and evolution and FREEWILL would all we would have. Those last three have no real hope in them whatsoever

And it is absurd to speak of an omnipotent being losing his freedom or his will.

I never said He lost His will. Nobody including God loses their will. He didn’t lose His freedom either. Its just the same as you saying I will never steal again. Now do you lose your freedom to do it? No, but you set a standard that you wont cross. Same thing with God.

Such a being can do anything that is not logically impossible, but he cannot impose constraints upon himself. The laws of logic exist notwithstanding the existence of any deity. On so many occasions I find myself defending the notion of an Absolutely Necessary Being while theists seem to resort to weakening God. Time and again I find that I’m defending God from a philosophical and logical standpoint and theists weaken him to fit with their doctrinal beliefs.

My answer above is the same here. You assume I am weakening Him by saying He set a standard on Himself. God can do anything, but God can not break His word otherwise He is a liar and the verses that say God does not lie means nothing and that means everything in the bible is not worth a grain of salt also if He can break His word. You are arguing pretty much the same argument most Christians argue about God creating evil. To them they say no He didn’t, but the scriptures plainly state He did. Is it not you right here who is arguing from a philosophical and mans logical standpoint to say God can not put a standard or “constraint” on Himself. He tells us to be “slow to anger” or put a constraint on our anger. Is He telling us to do something that He Himself hasn’t done/isn’t doing? What did Christ tell the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3-4, Jesus said the folks should do what the Pharisees taught. But not do what they did because they didn’t practice what they preached. Further, they would lay all kinds of burdens on the shoulders of other people but wouldn’t lift the finger to lift these burdens themselves. Now don’t read into this. Jesus didn’t rebuke them for laying heavy burdens on anyone. He rebuked them for not lifting the heavy burdens themselves. God doesn’t put burdens or contraints on us that He Himself has nothing to do with. Another one, we are to learn patience and that is a fruit of God, hence God also has patience too. We all know what patience is---its going without something that you want. Imagine telling those who believe in a God that God has/is going without something He wants right now. This is what the scriptures teach, no philosophical or logical argument is needed.

You argued at the top of the page for limited freedom in the case of God, because he made a promise to his creation (a case of human vanity, if ever I’ve heard of one).


How is it human vanity if that is what the scriptures say? Did God make a promise to make everything anew, return with “treasures”, etc etc etc? If He doesn’t do all He promised then Hes a liar. He is no longer able to CHANGE or do different than what He said. You are demeaning God to a be like a man


But I don’t understand this business of ‘chance’ versus being brought ‘back to life’! Is that why people believe in God, out of a fear of death, or an inability to come to terms with the fact that we’re only a part of this planet and not its raison d’etre? And if we make choices that are not made freely then we are not making choices! You can’t have it both ways, either we are completely determined, a la Aquinas, or we are not. Philosophical determinism is the concept where our every action is influenced by our environment and the laws of nature. Therefore what we believe to be choices are nothing of the sort. Aquinas said the same thing, but instead of the laws of nature he said we have the laws of God.

In all respect it does take a higher spiritual understanding to understand these things. I will try to briefly explain it. God doesn’t make you do something against your will BUT He does bring about the circumstances that will make your will want to do whatever it is He wants you to do. I don’t think Aquinas understood that, but I could be wrong. Its not like God holds a gun up to you and say do this or that, no He controls everything by circumstances. He brings about the circumstances that make you WANT to do whatever hence you have the verse “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do”. Everyone makes choices based on circumstances, conscious or subconscious. Same with thoughts, they are formed from circumstances also. In all honesty I don’t think most people fear God out of fear of death because most believe in the immortality of the soul or dying and going to heaven or hell or some other place or even reincarnation. In fact, really looking at it, I don’t think most truly fear God.

For a good God to inflict evil on his creation so that they can learn what is wrong is like beating a child in order for it to know what pain is. And does an all-sufficient, omnipotent being really have to humble his creation, when they are already error prone, imperfect and completely at his mercy? No, I’m sorry, but what you say here is utterly nonsensical.


First you have to realize that most of humanity don’t truly think that they arealready error prone, imperfect and completely at his mercy, hence the doctrines of freewill and the teachings of the “fall”. Second the scriptures completely disagree with what you are saying. I first gave you the Ecc 1:13 verse from the CLV which plainly states God giving man an experience of evil. Paul mentions this again in Romans about us being subjected to vanity, then we have the “strong delusion” and more and more verses that say the same thing. Yes things of the spirit seems nonsensical to those who don’t understand the spirit. Heres an easy way to understand it. God wanted us to have a knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil are contrasts of each other. Now if you know the teaching of the “fall” is not scriptural or true then this becomes real easy to see. We learn evil to know good the same way we cold to hot and etc etc.

And I have to repeat what I said before, if Bible scripture was 'true' then the fact that it was true would be universally acknowledged. But it isn't. It is only 'true' for believers, who are inclined or disposed to believe such.

You cant use that argument, case in point, the universal truth “God is love”. This is a universal truth. But hardly any believes it hence the doctrines of hell and stuff. A truth doesn’t have to be universally acknowledged. Freewill is basically acknowledged by all, but it is not true. Therefore a lie can be universal truth to those who believe the lie, but that don’t make it true.


Actually I’m talking about the world as a whole, not aspects of religion, and the world as whole does not accept Biblical prophecy as an irrefutable truth.

I know and its sad because when presented with proof, still they deny it or refuse to accept it and this is one area where a proof of a God should shine.

 

[AK4]

I’m sorry but you are begging the question by beginning your argument with your conclusion that the world was created so that you can say it therefore requires a creator! That is fallacious. If we're searching for the truth we don't begin with our answer and then find for it in our conclusion. We must start from what there is, ie existence' not a preconceived assumption.

Is that exactly what science is doing? We observe something first, and then we try to find out why or what it is that made whatever we observe be. How can we observe and know the Creator without first observing the creation and knowing what the creation is? We are not starting with the Creator here, we are starting with the creation first. I’d bet that in no ones life did they first conclude with a God being first and then start looking for answers, on the contrary it started with the creation first then started looking for something higher, hence “there must be something higher out there” as the saying goes.

 

[godnotgod]

No. If it's only a belief, then it's not knowledge. Knowledge is more like "justified true belief". Superficial knowledge might be superficially true, but still true.

Can you provide an example as it pertains to knowledge of God?

And how is this confirmation?

When you trip and fall into a mountain lake, how do you confirm that the water is cold?

Wait a minute. It seems like when we're talking about looking for evidence, God is not part of the phenomenal world. Then, when we're talking about whether God affects the phenomenal world, suddenly he is part of it... and not just that but "part and parcel of it".

Did I ever say God was not part of the phenomenal world? The universe IS the Absolute, but it is falsely seen through the filters of Time, Space and Causation.

Which is it?

If God has physical effects, then these effects create evidence that can be observed or measured. If God creates no observable evidence, then this implies he has no physical effects.

But God has no observable physical effects other than those that are considered ordinary. You are looking for something that is not there, and not seeing what actually IS there.

You can't have it both ways.


Which is just what I described: a God that's either physically impotent or non-existent.

Is the physical world not full of vitality, even down to the subatomic level, where everything is in ecstatic vibration?

Just because something leaves no trace does not mean it is impotent nor non-existent. Consider TV signals in a room, or a mirror.

No, I'm not doing that.

Personally, I believe that there's only the physical. I think that "spiritual" is a word we use to describe physical things. However, I recognized that it sounds like you believe in some sort of "spiritual" plane, so I tried to address that possibility in my response, because I don't really want to get spun off into a tangent on materialism.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm specifically talking about the physical. If you want to believe in some other spiritual plane where you can put God, fine. I personally don't, but I'm not really interested in bringing you to my point of view on that.

Uh, huh. You 'believe there is only the physical world'. Why so arbitrary?

In proclaiming an affirmation of the physical, you are, simultaneously, affirming the non-physical. Are you aware of that? You cannot have one without the other. Physical objects require non-physical space to define them, and vice-versa.

On top of that, 'physical', as in 'solid', does not really exist, as modern science is now discovering. Atoms are mostly empty space.

But it is not I who is separating the physical from the spiritual: on the contrary; I am saying they are, in actuality, one and the same. I do not see them as dualities, but as singular. 'Physical' and 'spiritual' are but convenient mental constructs designed by the rational mind as a means of making 'sense' of a world it cannot fathom. When we remove these artificial constructs, we suddenly see the world as it actually is, and that is that it does not obey the confines of such definitions.

Why would that be?

This is just how things work: for example, if I want to find out whether there's actually a beaver in the lodge by my house, I could go sneak some sort of video camera in to have a look. If I see a beaver, then I know my answer's "yes". This may not give me full knowledge of what it feels like to be a beaver, but it would conclusively answer the question of whether the beaver (the actual beaver, not just a "beaver of concept") exists.

Yes, but your analogy fails when it comes to confirming the existence of God, because God cannot be confirmed by any of the five senses, or by any technological apparatus. His nature is beyond the five senses; beyond Time, Space, and Causation. Therefore, another kind of consciousness must be utilized, one which we have little or no knowledge of, and that consciousness must be that of God himself. You still want to confirm the existence of God as if he were an observable, verifiable object, but God can never be an object. Do you understand that there is no such thing as 'self and other'?

Is this a general statement about the nature of all knowledge, or is it just special pleading on behalf of God alone?

What pleading? All I am saying is that all attempts to define God are futile. We can only speak about the divine nature in terms of what it is not. And what it is not is 'not this', and 'not that' ("neti, neti").

...but then there is "Tas atvam asi" ("Thou art That"): It is YOU that is the divine nature itself. It is not an object; there is no 'self and other'.

If I am mistaken, please provide a definition of God in positive terms. The closest I can come is this:

"God is a circle whose circumference is endless
and whose center is everywhere"

Still, this only describes characteristics of the divine nature, and not the divine nature itself. Even then, can the human mind really fathom the true meaning of this statement? I think not.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah, ok, so a heroin addict is a better source when it comes to the dangers of drugs than a doctor?

Maybe yes, maybe no, but that is not the issue. A heroin addict is a better source when it comes to describing the actual, first hand experience of a heroin fix than a doctor is.

In the case of the spiritual experience, an observer is even less qualified to provide an accurate description. All he can do is to document the characteristics of the experience, such as body temperature, breathing, heart rate, brain wave activity, etc. We do have documented evidence that practitioners of Zen, Yoga, etc, generate positive physical effects as a direct result of their practice. Better health and happier outlooks on life are the results of such practice.

You don't have to explain it through words, just back up that it exists at all. Otherwise, that's too bad, you can't use it as an argument if you can not back it up. Why should I turn around 180 degrees and say that you're correct, what is the empirical evidence indicating you are right? In other words, it accepts things by blind faith.

No. Seeing reality as it is has nothing to do with 'blind faith'. Is seeing reality as it actually exists such an extraordinary thing that it requires evidence and confirmation and mountains of documentation to prove that this is possible?

Definately, but it's not enough when you say "it can be erronous", you really have to point out through logic reasoning where it is faulty. Like I do with spirutalism. You have to give some kind of evidence that it is perfect vision before I believe you, OK?

You originally stated that rational thought is imperfect, so therefore, it must be erroneous at times, as logic dictates. You yourself have indicated its inherent faultiness.

Let us look at the question of perfect vision from another angle. Let us simply ask the question: "Is it possible to see reality exactly as it is?" If the answer is 'yes', then perfect vision is a reality, because that is what perfect vision is.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know about you guys, but I believe my knowledge.

If you really have true knowledge, why must you also believe it?

 

[nrg]

Maybe yes, maybe no, but that is not the issue. A heroin addict is a better source when it comes to describing the actual, first hand experience of a heroin fix than a doctor is.

But that isn't what we're talking about, a heroin addict has no idea of what really happens to the body, only what it feels like. He can't describe the dangers of the drug in such a detail that he contributes to methods for countering the effects, or any other sort of thing.

And why is it not related to the issue? You said first hand experiences are automatically more reliable than objective data, don't be grumpy because you can use overload statements to disprove it.

In the case of the spiritual experience, an observer is even less qualified to provide an accurate description. All he can do is to document the characteristics of the experience, such as body temperature, breathing, heart rate, brain wave activity, etc.

And then maybe find out if this "spiritual experience" is just his mind playing tricks with him.

We do have documented evidence that practitioners of Zen, Yoga, etc, generate positive physical effects as a direct result of their practice. Better health and happier outlooks on life are the results of such practice.

Your point being? We're not debating wether or not these techniques are good for your health, we're debating wether or not they're connected to something super natural.

No. Seeing reality as it is has nothing to do with 'blind faith'. Is seeing reality as it actually exists such an extraordinary thing that it requires evidence and confirmation and mountains of documentation to prove that this is possible?

Yes, it really, really, really does, and so does every other statement in the world if it is to be called "reality".

You originally stated that rational thought is imperfect, so therefore, it must be erroneous at times, as logic dictates. You yourself have indicated its inherent faultiness.

Yep, at times. And that's why we use evidence to find out when it was wrong.

Let us look at the question of perfect vision from another angle. Let us simply ask the question: "Is it possible to see reality exactly as it is?" If the answer is 'yes', then perfect vision is a reality, because that is what perfect vision is.

Nope, we still need evidence perfect vision actually does exist. Just because we can conceive it, doesn't mean it exists (it becomes open for overload statements).

 

[ChrisP]

This thread is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma with other mini threads dangling from it. Impossible to read...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you provide an example as it pertains to knowledge of God?

You want me to provide an example of knowledge of something I don't believe exists? I think that would be difficult.

When you trip and fall into a mountain lake, how do you confirm that the water is cold?

From the knowledge that you had before you fell in. Normally, very cold water creates a sensation that feels almost like burning. It feels hot, not cold.

I think it's interesting that you picked an example where experiential perception is deceptive and it's the rational or "superficial" knowledge that would actually tell you what was going on.

Did I ever say God was not part of the phenomenal world? The universe IS the Absolute, but it is falsely seen through the filters of Time, Space and Causation.

You implied that God is not part of the phenomenal world when you declared that he's not subject to rational inquiry in the way that works for things in or of the phenomenal world.

But God has no observable physical effects other than those that are considered ordinary. You are looking for something that is not there, and not seeing what actually IS there.

"No observable physical effects" implies that God is not part of the phenomenal world. Which is it?

Or maybe we're hitting a problem of terminology; I'm not sure we're using the same definitions for things like "physical" and "non-physical".

Is the physical world not full of vitality, even down to the subatomic level, where everything is in ecstatic vibration?

If "vitality" implies life, then no. There's energy, but equating energy with life without explanation and then using this to infer some sort of life force is begging the question.

And I don't know how you'd be in a position to assess the emotions of subatomic particles, but I'm inclined to reject your description of vibration as "ecstatic" as baseless supposition until you give me good reason to change my mind.

Just because something leaves no trace does not mean it is impotent nor non-existent. Consider TV signals in a room, or a mirror.

What about them? The light emitted from a TV or reflected by a mirror is very much measurable and observable.

Uh, huh. You 'believe there is only the physical world'. Why so arbitrary?

It's not arbitrary; it's the conclusion I've come to after living in the world and observing it: IMO, everything I've seen better matches a physical-only model than one that incorporates the supernatural.

In proclaiming an affirmation of the physical, you are, simultaneously, affirming the non-physical. Are you aware of that? You cannot have one without the other. Physical objects require non-physical space to define them, and vice-versa.

Again, I think we're running into a disagreement in terminology. When I say "physical", I'm trying to say that I don't believe in the supernatural or the spiritual as other planes of existence. I'm perfectly aware that space exists; I include it in my definition of the physical.

On top of that, 'physical', as in 'solid', does not really exist, as modern science is now discovering. Atoms are mostly empty space.

Straw man. I didn't say I only believed in solid things.

But it is not I who is separating the physical from the spiritual: on the contrary; I am saying they are, in actuality, one and the same. I do not see them as dualities, but as singular. 'Physical' and 'spiritual' are but convenient mental constructs designed by the rational mind as a means of making 'sense' of a world it cannot fathom. When we remove these artificial constructs, we suddenly see the world as it actually is, and that is that it does not obey the confines of such definitions.

Ah... so you agree that the "spiritual" does not exist as some sort of etherial plane? Good; we're in agreement, then. I also believe that "spiritual" is just a word that people use to describe aspects of physical reality.

Yes, but your analogy fails when it comes to confirming the existence of God, because God cannot be confirmed by any of the five senses, or by any technological apparatus.

... which would include any apparatus available to you, then. Effectively, you argue against the idea that you know what you're talking about.

His nature is beyond the five senses; beyond Time, Space, and Causation. Therefore, another kind of consciousness must be utilized, one which we have little or no knowledge of, and that consciousness must be that of God himself. You still want to confirm the existence of God as if he were an observable, verifiable object, but God can never be an object.

If God interacts with the universe, then this interaction can be observed or measured. If God doesn't interact with the universe, then he's irrelevant.

Do you understand that there is no such thing as 'self and other'?

What does this have to do with anything?

What pleading?

I argued that we can use factual knowledge as the basis for rational decisions. You argued that I was incorrect. If you're saying that only God get this exemption, then you're engaging in special pleading.

All I am saying is that all attempts to define God are futile. We can only speak about the divine nature in terms of what it is not. And what it is not is 'not this', and 'not that' ("neti, neti").

When did I say I wanted to define God? I don't. Right now, all I'm interested in is ascertaining that he exists, assuming that he does. Beyond that, he can be as mysterious or inscrutible as you want.

...but then there is "Tas atvam asi" ("Thou art That"): It is YOU that is the divine nature itself. It is not an object; there is no 'self and other'.

But physical existence is a property of objects. If you're arguing against the fundamental idea of objects, then it seems to me that you're arguing against the existence of God... at least in physical terms.

If I am mistaken, please provide a definition of God in positive terms. The closest I can come is this:



Still, this only describes characteristics of the divine nature, and not the divine nature itself. Even then, can the human mind really fathom the true meaning of this statement? I think not.

Again: I'm not interested in defining God. As an analogy, even though the bulk of an iceberg is underwater, I can confirm that the iceberg exists by noting the tip that protudes from the surface.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......I have simply shown that the believer and non-believer have the same footing.

Ok, then one worldview is as good as another.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, but your analogy fails when it comes to confirming the existence of God, because God cannot be confirmed by any of the five senses, or by any technological apparatus.

What is the difference between being unobservable by any sense or technological apparatus, and being functionally non-existent.

If there is no way to perceive something, even theoretically, what difference does it make whether It exists or not?