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

[Autodidact]

I agree! Lets get rid of religion and the ways of the world and only reside in truth!

Cool. I move we start with Christianity.

 

[cottage]

Not necessarily. There were A LOT of things I knew from science or experience first before I knew exactly what the scriptures taught or before I had a real interest in God. These experiences came first, hence this is somewhat what I was trying to explain in my “experience”. Now I can look back at those experiences (and somewhat experience them again, this time only with a new mind) and see how I was wrong in my thinking or doings or whatever. Basically to be straight forward I experienced life “without” God first, and now I “experience” life with God.

Okay, but you’ve not actually given any examples of these ‘experiences’; so I’m still unable to comment on them.

But then who made the what is logical to be logical. He did. Actually the scriptures do say in a sense that the logic of the wise will be turned on there heads or the wisdom of the world is foolishness. That last example doesn’t fit a God definition, why? Because if He is a God what would be illogically impossible for Him to do? So the old adage comes in “can God make a rock too big that He cant lift it?”. Limited freedom is not what freewill is. Freewill is "the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces."

One would not say this about limited freedom.

As I explained, the term ‘freedom’ isn’t contradicted by the boundaries that define it, in whatever sense, and I used the example that even an omnipotent God is not free to change or suspend the laws of logic. He simply cannot do it, just as humans aren’t free to act independently of the laws of nature. And God can logically no more create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift that he can cause himself to be non-existent. It’s an absurdity, just as it is to say God caused logic to be what it is and thereafter became bound by it for all eternity. It’s self-evidently nonsense!

But if I might pick up on something you said in your previous post, where you said you don’t understand atheist determinists: “it just like saying we are here and thats it, no hope no nothing. Its just another way of saying what it says in the scriptures "eat and drink for tomorrow we die". No purpose for nothing.”
Now that seems an odd thing to say, since divine determinism (which isn’t at all the same as philosophical determinism) means that logically we serve no purpose whatsoever. Aquinas explained: ‘God not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as a cause’ (Summa Contra Gentiles). So according to this there is nothing we do on our own account; our thoughts and actions are completely determined in every way; we are in effect automatons, puppets following an exact prescription. Thus, we have no purpose; there is only God’s purpose and we’ve just been used as tool.

Okay lets not call it the spirit of God, lets call it something scientific lets just say it’s the hydrogen atom. Even when hydrogen is fused to make something else, still hydrogen was present at the very start. Does it become a statement of fact or truth now?

Here you are arguing from something that exists in experience. I don’t dispute the existence of hydrogen as I dispute the ‘spirit of God.’

Its funny because this is what Jesus said to the thiest scholars who use exegesis to explain errors, contradictions and inconsistencies during His time, which also is applied to those of our time

Mt 23:24 -"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Actually read this whole passage (Matthew 23:13-33) and see what He had to say about those scholars.

I’m sorry but what you are presenting here is argument from the Bible that argues to the supposed truth of the Bible as an argument to God, which then means to prove the truth of the Bible!

A spirit of one or as we call it an esprie de core [ I know I spelled it wrong]. Gods word, although made up of many scrolls must have a esprie de core. Militaries, the US marines say they have an esprie de core. Gods word MUST have this. A lot of things on the surface in the bible may seem contradictory to those who don’t really know the principles of the Word yet they are not if one knows how to use the principles or is knowledgeable of the Foundation.

Yes, I can understand that, which I why I say it is a ‘believers’ argument’.

The major proof of God existing is the scriptures, and lets just say its the OT. Its not a coincidence that a few different people of a people who claim to be chosen of God write A LOT of bad stuff about their own bad people and make “predictions” or prophecy about them and there destruction, which a lot of have come to pass. If that’s not a proof I don’t know what is. Now for the eternal universe, we have nothing in creation to support the notion of eternal. So in essence we have more proof of God existing than an eternal universe.

I’m afraid I cannot agree with any of that. I have to say it again, the Bible is an argument for believers because they have a prior disposition or inclination to belief as faith, and therefore the ‘proof’s are a self-fulfilling prophecy. To exemplify this, consider that it is only believers that accept the predictions beyond criticism, and it is most certainly only believers who say these prophecies are proof for the existence of a supernatural being! Where in the statistical sciences do we see Biblical prophecy being subjected to critical examination, other than by theist scholars who want to confirm what they’ve already concluded? If the world at large found Biblical prophecy true and utterly compelling then that would be the case, and you wouldn’t have to inform the people of the world why they ought to find it compelling.

You say we have nothing in ‘creation’ [you mean existence] to support the notion of anything eternal. And in the next breath you say ‘we have more proof for God existing than an eternal universe.’ How so? If ‘we have nothing in existence to support the notion of anything eternal’ then the same argument to ‘nothing’ applies to everything. And yet while nobody has observed physical matter to begin, we know physical matter exists. But where and what is an eternal God? God doesn’t exist physically and can be denied logically, whereas neither of those things can be denied in the case of the material world. Even Aquinas, whose cosmological argument to the existence of God was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, argued that the physical world has in some sense always been.

 

[AK4]

Cool. I move we start with Christianity.

Why christianity? Why not judaism or islam or hinduism or satanism? Why not just get rid of all of em at the same time and have only the "religion" of truth?

 

[McBell]

Why not just get rid of all of em at the same time and have only the "religion" of truth?

Seems to me that "religion" and "truth" are more often at odds with one another.

Unless of course you fill in the huge gaping hole that separates them with faith....

 

[AK4]

.]

Okay, but you’ve not actually given any examples of these ‘experiences’; so I’m still unable to comment on them.
[/COLOR]

Okay heres one experience but I will skip a lot of the details so I can get it out. I can start doing something like playing a video game or something. While doing this I start to think of God and this whole ordeal of freewill. Now being playing video games for nearly all my life I know the difference of getting “lost” in a game compared to my experience. I also know the difference of getting lost in thought while doing something else. This experience is somewhat along those lines but a lot different. Okay now while having this experience a scripture will come to mind “out of the blue” like “all pleasures are at My right hand”. This spoken by God somewhere in Psalms and to me this could also be equated to whatever one could imagine and one finds it pleasurable and actually believe Gods words then that pleasure could will someday come true. So while playing the game still I let my mind wonder. [Remind you that the games I play deal with complex motions and strategy and all that good stuff].

Many things come to mind, a lot of the stuff from the past that I used to thoroughly believe and since “all pleasures are at My right hand” and I had fallen hook line and sinker for someones old teachings back then I start to imagine or picture, actually better stated “experience” this person or persons thoughts or teachings. All may be going well until something “pops” up that just don’t match the scriptures or makes me suspicious of what it is I was experiencing. So I do like my motto says “question everything”. So this is where God sends me into an experience to see why or how this person or persons came to view or think the way they thought. Its not just an experience of questioning something like a thesis someone wrote, no its like I “become” that person and see how and why they thought this or that and how they came to that conclusion. [Meanwhile I am still playing this video game or something]. Its not just thinking and its more than just deep thought.

Anyway I as God leads me further and further I almost always come to a “AHA point” and some scriptures come to mind and God shows me that although “all pleasures are at My right hand” many people have taken it too far and gone out of bounds of scripture. If I was to relate this to something I would relate it to time travel. I used to thoroughly believe that the bible had nothing to say about it specifically yet in a way this is like it. Its also being able to see or experience someone elses experience without being that person or at that time. Yeah I know it sounds simple and “everyones probably had some sort of experience like it” yet to explain the difference in them is too difficult to do. The best way to explain it is if one has this type of experience and don’t know the truth then like my experiences show me, their imaginations can run wild and they eventually get away from the truth. And it’s the opposite if one knows the truth and have this experience, they could be confident that if it actually stays in the boundaries of the truth then truly “all pleasures are at My right hand”.

After the “Aha moment” I snap back and realize what happened, not saying that I didn’t know what was happening while it was happening but I think you get my drift. I see where this person or persons have gone away from the scriptures. Meanwhile I continue playing the game like nothing ever happened.

I didn’t throw in many scriptures to back up what I say but basically a good one or two to go with this…nah then I would have to explain those. Well there one of my many experiences brought to you briefly….Whew I finally got something out after all this timeJ

 

[AK4]

[

quote=cottage;1936813][
As I explained, the term ‘freedom’ isn’t contradicted by the boundaries that define it, in whatever sense, and I used the example that even an omnipotent God is not free to change or suspend the laws of logic. He simply cannot do it, just as humans aren’t free to act independently of the laws of nature. And God can logically no more create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift that he can cause himself to be non-existent. It’s an absurdity, just as it is to say God caused logic to be what it is and thereafter became bound by it for all eternity. It’s self-evidently nonsense!

In a way we are both saying the same thing. For example, God says that He is good. Once He chose this or realized this about Himself He has no freedom to change it once He spoke it and promised His creation that He was good. Hence He lost His “freedom” or “freewill” to be either good or bad, He must now always be good.

But you say God is not free to change or suspend the laws of logic---Well I disagree because what are miracles? What is the resurrection? What was the turning back the sun dial? Etc etc etc. For all we know He broke the laws of logic that we are aware of, but this is not saying He broke any laws of logic that He knows of.

But freedom is not freedom if one is put in a cage and told that they can wonder around the cage with all the freedom they want but they can never leave the cage. If that’s freedom then so is a dog on chain.

Now that seems an odd thing to say, since divine determinism (which isn’t at all the same as philosophical determinism) means that logically we serve no purpose whatsoever. Aquinas explained: ‘God not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as a cause’ (Summa Contra Gentiles). So according to this there is nothing we do on our own account; our thoughts and actions are completely determined in every way; we are in effect automatons, puppets following an exact prescription. Thus, we have no purpose; there is only God’s purpose and we’ve just been used as tool.

Im a little confused. Atheists determinism vs divine determinism. This cannot be the same. If atheists don’t believe in a God then their only hope is that “chance” somewhere out there in the universe brings them back to life—it’s a big universe, good luck! But anyway, yes Aquinas is right for once [ive never read his stuff but from what people have quoted from him on this forum this is the only one I see that is true]. Your last couple of sentences---no we are not automatons or puppets, we are a lot a lot a lot more complex than that. This part of the sentence is correct “So according to this there is nothing we do on our own account; our thoughts and actions are completely determined in every way”. We do have a purpose, we do make choices although not freely. That’s beauty in the deception of freewill. It really is an amazing concept that satan has used to “deceive the whole world”. How many on earth is at home with this deception? BILLIONS. If that’s not a proof of God existence, man I don’t know what else to say.


Anyway many may think that even with divine determinism we serve no purpose. Thanks to the church who don’t teach what our purpose is, of course many will not know and it makes the divine determinism that you state viable, but to give a short answer to counter what you say, one purpose of this life on earth is to learn or get a knowledge of good and evil and that is why God has first given us an “experience of evil to humble us” so when He makes everything right, well you get the picture.

Here you are arguing from something that exists in experience. I don’t dispute the existence of hydrogen as I dispute the ‘spirit of God.’

I guess this would be a good place to say or show why the bible says that things right now is a shadow of things to come. Throw also in there Jesus only spoke in parables---that’s when He spoke in the OT and NT.

I’m sorry but what you are presenting here is argument from the Bible that argues to the supposed truth of the Bible as an argument to God, which then means to prove the truth of the Bible!

Is this not a truth? Don’t scholars and theologians of today look at scripture and gleen a small truth out of it (strain out a gnat) and from that the turn that simple verse or truth to something hard to swallow. My bad they swallow a camel and never really get the truth because of all the other stuff they try to say makes this verse what it is. I.E. “this was only said in Matthew and Matthew was gentile so this only pertains to gentiles” or “Johns gospel is more esoteric than the synoptic gospels so its doesn’t necessarily mean this or that”. How about “well Paul was never really a apostle so he shouldn’t be trusted in his writings”. Yet again Jesus’ saying proves to be true, well actually turns also into a prophecy that came true, which should be proof enough of the truth of the bible. And theres many many more NT prophecies that have or is still being fulfilled that shows that the scriptures is true.

I’m afraid I cannot agree with any of that. I have to say it again, the Bible is an argument for believers because they have a prior disposition or inclination to belief as faith, and therefore the ‘proof’s are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That’s called blind faith, which is not what the scriptures truly teach.

To exemplify this, consider that it is only believers that accept the predictions beyond criticism,

Blind faithers again. As for me and those I know who think like me this is not the case.

and it is most certainly only believers who say these prophecies are proof for the existence of a supernatural being!

I don’t know Paul stated or was it Peter who said that the church [yes he was saying to those who were believers] will grow worse and worse or “wax worse and worse” after his departing. Now look at the churches throughout the last 2000 yrs and tell me that not a prophecy being fulfilled.

Where in the statistical sciences do we see Biblical prophecy being subjected to critical examination, other than by theist scholars who want to confirm what they’ve already concluded?

This may be true and these may not be lovers of the truth regardless of what comes out statistically.

If the world at large found Biblical prophecy true and utterly compelling then that would be the case, and you wouldn’t have to inform the people of the world why they ought to find it compelling.

Look at how many, in all religions, believe in a hell. Does this discredit your argument? [only a sick sick individual would really believe in a hell and unfortunately we have billions who do]

You say we have nothing in ‘creation’ [you mean existence] to support the notion of anything eternal. And in the next breath you say ‘we have more proof for God existing than an eternal universe.’ How so? If ‘we have nothing in existence to support the notion of anything eternal’ then the same argument to ‘nothing’ applies to everything. And yet while nobody has observed physical matter to begin, we know physical matter exists. But where and what is an eternal God? God doesn’t exist physically and can be denied logically, whereas neither of those things can be denied in the case of the material world.

No No. Creation and existence in not the same. Yes if you change creation to existence then your argument stands but God [the Father] cannot be a created being. Hes in existence but not in creation.

 

[Autodidact]

Why christianity?

As a Christian, you can do the most to eradicate Christianity.

Why not judaism or islam or hinduism or satanism? Why not just get rid of all of em at the same time and have only the "religion" of truth?

Amen, brother.

 

[AK4]

Seems to me that "religion" and "truth" are more often at odds with one another.

Unless of course you fill in the huge gaping hole that separates them with faith....

I totally agree.:clap But even faith differing from religion to religion has huge gaping holes in it too.

 

[Autodidact]

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I use it as a means of communicating with others who understand God as being a reality.

That makes no sense.

Yes. Can you show me a belief that is not?

How about phobias? How about any belief that's based on emotion rather than reason?

I am not talking about knowledge; I am talking about seeing, without thought, without belief, without knowledge.

Earlier, you talked about how a person could "know God". Knowing God implies knowledge; this is basic grammar.

In terms of the apprehension of reality, they are obstacles. Reality itself cannot be encapsulated by an encapsulator, because the menu is not the meal, and because the encapsulator (ie; the self) does not actually exist.

I won't argue your point about the self because I don't want to get drawn off into a tangent, but IMO, conceptual thought is our only way to know things. I don't see why you say that it's an obstacle to anything; on the contrary, I think it's one of our most important tools.

Yes, but where your original analogy fails is that the kind of evidence for the New World does not work to demonstrate the existence of God.

Actually, that was kinda the point: the sort of methodology that Columbus used to determine that the New World exists is the sort of methodology that works when things actually exist.

You will only end up with a description of water, without any real understanding about its true nature.

So? If that's all we're concerned with, what's wrong with that?

On the question of the existence of God, I'd settle for a description of God as long as it was based in fact.

There is a famous Buddhist story about a man fatally shot with an arrow. A doctor, passing by, stops to remove the arrow, but the man protests, inquiring about the kind of wood the arrow is made of; about the kind of bird whose feathers are attached to the arrow; about the man who made the arrow, and on and on. By the time these questions are answered, the man would be dead, instead of paying attention to his immediate predicament.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.

I never said we were immersed in evidence; I said we are at one with the divine essence itself, whether we think so or not. The nature of the divine essence is such that it is beyond the five senses. No evidence provable by ordinary means is available, and yet, the divine essence is right in front of you.

If you have no evidence at all of "the divine essence", why assume it exists in the first place?

An experience is not a concept.

To derive meaning from an experience, you must employ concepts. Things like "divine essence" or the statement "God is just the ordinary state of affairs" are all concepts.

Yes, it is. Talking about it is not the actual reality.

Of course it isn't. As they say, "the map is not the territory". However, if the map doesn't correspond to the territory, then your map isn't a map of the territory.

When we apply terms and language to a thing, we imply that there is a correspondence between the "map" (i.e. our terms and language) and the "territory" (i.e. the reality of the thing described).

Not really, as the modern's view of these things is a revival of the ancient view.

The "four elements" theory of matter has not been revived in any sense of the word.

Modern man has quite a refined knowledge, and in abundance, but we are further away from spiritual fullfilment than ever. Why do you think that such intuitive spiritual views such as Gnosticism, Zen, Yoga, etc, are all enjoying renewed interest? Because they nourish man's spiritual hunger where 'knowledge', as superior as modern man's is, cannot. In fact, it has become a great obstacle to such fullfilment, because it is a fragmentation of reality, rather than an apprehension of its wholeness intact as it actually exists.

Actually, I chalk this up to two phenomena:

- increase in availability of information. It used to be that someone could live their entire lives without ever even hearing of beliefs like Gnosticism. They might've resonated with people in the past, but they never had the opportunity to learn about them.

- in the case of Eastern religions and practices like Zen and Yoga, their rise in popularity in the West is generally a result of increased migration as well as information-sharing between cultures. Fundamentally, it's the same effect that's created an increased demand for curry in Britain or sushi in North America. It's also the same effect that's resulted in the rise of Christianity in east Asia: barriers between cultures have been broken down, so cultural aspects like religion (and cuisine) are now free to migrate back and forth.

And I'd say that the mainstream "yoga" that's popular in the West is more about stretching and fitness than it is about spirituality.

 

[godnotgod]

That makes no sense.

In other words, I use the word "God" when I am speaking to believers so we can have a common handle for discussion. However, it is only a temporary handle.

How about phobias? How about any belief that's based on emotion rather than reason?

Same difference: thought is behind fear and other emotionally driven, automatic responses. It's just that in the examples you give, they are already hard-wired in.

Earlier, you talked about how a person could "know God". Knowing God implies knowledge; this is basic grammar.

It is not the same kind of knowledge. Knowledge of "God" requires exactly the opposite of ordinary knowledge, in that one must first empty oneself (kenosis; no-mind; emptiness) as compared to acquisition of data. Ordinary, acquired knowledge can only produce ideas and concepts about God, and only of God as an object. True knowledge of the divine essence is totally intimate.

I won't argue your point about the self because I don't want to get drawn off into a tangent, but IMO, conceptual thought is our only way to know things. I don't see why you say that it's an obstacle to anything; on the contrary, I think it's one of our most important tools.

It is "our only way of knowing thing"s because that is the concept of learning that you are socially indoctrinated with. Practices such as Zen show you a way of shedding your indoctrination so that you can see with new vision. Conceptual thought is a mostly Western view, but there are other pathways to knowledge, namely Higher Consciousness, which conceptual thought cannot access. People who are stuck in conceptual thought patterns cannot see any other way of apprehending reality, so they see all other ways as invalid. Conceptual thought, especially that of Science, has become somewhat of a doctrine, or rather, dogma, in itself.

Actually, that was kinda the point: the sort of methodology that Columbus used to determine that the New World exists is the sort of methodology that works when things actually exist.

It only works for the sphere of the phenomenal world. As for the world of the spirit, there is virtually no evidence which points to it, and yet, as I mentioned earlier, it is right under our very noses. It has to do with the way we see things. In other words, our vision must be corrected first.

So? If that's all we're concerned with, what's wrong with that?

The believer who religiously goes to church on Sunday and visits the collection box is perfectly but superficially satisfied that he is doing his duty in a smug sort of way. That is all he requires. But he does not have the kind of intimate knowledge of the divine essence that satisfies.

On the question of the existence of God, I'd settle for a description of God as long as it was based in fact.

When you have the facts, you don't need any descriptions. The fact is that when you have the facts, the question of existence/non-existence becomes unimportant. It is only important to those who are still nibbling around the edges.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.

The analogy is of someone who is missing the point by insisting on knowing the details (ie; measurements) about something, rather than paying attention to what is really important.

If you have no evidence at all of "the divine essence", why assume it exists in the first place?

There is no assumption about it at all, since it is a direct experience, and not an object of conceptual thought.

To derive meaning from an experience, you must employ concepts. Things like "divine essence" or the statement "God is just the ordinary state of affairs" are all concepts.

But deriving meaning from the experience is not the point; the experience itself is the point.

Divine essence and the Ordinary are realities that can be experienced and seen. They are non-conceptual because they do not involve the thinking mind in order to see them. Part of the process of this direct seeing into the true nature of reality is when all dualities suddenly are realized as being one. We see that the Ordinary is infused with the Infinite nature. The physical world then becomes transformed right before us. What is realized is that it was there all the time. The difference is that we now see reality as it actually appears, rather than how our conceptual mind has been telling us how it is supposed to appear.

Of course it isn't. As they say, "the map is not the territory". However, if the map doesn't correspond to the territory, then your map isn't a map of the territory.

Yes, exactly. That is why we need to discard the conceptual map, and locate another kind of map. This other kind of map is the intuitive mind. It is the pathway we have been seeking all along, but were using the conceptual, intellectual map which only leads us round and round. Science is no closer to real understanding of the universe than ever, in spite of its great advances in astrophysics. In fact, in recent years, it finds itself only confirming what Buddhism has been telling us for centuries.

When we apply terms and language to a thing, we imply that there is a correspondence between the "map" (i.e. our terms and language) and the "territory" (i.e. the reality of the thing described).

Again, this is fine for ordinary reality, but we need a different kind of map for the realm of the divine. Jesus told his listeners they were mistaken to think they would find eternal life within the scriptures. The scriptures are a map of the traces of the spiritual experience. The untransformed mind cannot understand what it is reading. It must first be transformed by the spiritual experience before a comprehension of the scriptures can take place. It is for this reason that Zen, Gnosticism, and other mystical practices give second priority to the scriptures, and first place to first hand direct experiences such as Satori, Enlightenment, Nirvana, and Gnosis.

And I'd say that the mainstream "yoga" that's popular in the West is more about stretching and fitness than it is about spirituality.

It does'nt matter: at the heart of yoga is union with the divine essence. As I said, it can be used for fitness, but what I am asking you is what is it exactly that is generating fitness and health within the yoga practice? It goes much deeper than you are painting it.

Many Westerners, especially Christians, try to discredit and belittle Eastern practices by labeling them as 'self-improvement' routines, suggesting that they are little more than something akin to getting a manicure and shampoo at the beauty salon.

Nice try!

 

[cottage]

In a way we are both saying the same thing. For example, God says that He is good. Once He chose this or realized this about Himself He has no freedom to change it once He spoke it and promised His creation that He was good. Hence He lost His “freedom” or “freewill” to be either good or bad, He must now always be good.

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. You argue that God reasons; I argue that God is reason. He cannot ‘realize things about himself’ or make promises or covenants and bind himself to his creation. And it is absurd to speak of an omnipotent being losing his freedom or his will. 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.

But you say God is not free to change or suspend the laws of logic---Well I disagree because what are miracles? What is the resurrection? What was the turning back the sun dial? Etc etc etc. For all we know He broke the laws of logic that we are aware of, but this is not saying He broke any laws of logic that He knows of.

If by the ‘Resurrection’ you mean a dead body coming to life three days after death, and with no visible corruption of the flesh, there is no proof that any such thing ever happened, but it isn’t logically impossible for it doesn’t contradict the laws of thought.

But freedom is not freedom if one is put in a cage and told that they can wonder around the cage with all the freedom they want but they can never leave the cage. If that’s freedom then so is a dog on chain.

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). I disagreed because it is a logical absurdity, but it is true nevertheless that God is bound by what is logically possible. There are things that God’s almighty will cannot bring about, and he can only act within logically possible boundaries; he cannot change history or square a circle and he cannot be other than what he is. So, yes, we’re all dogs on chains to some extent, even God.

Im a little confused. Atheists determinism vs divine determinism. This cannot be the same. If atheists don’t believe in a God then their only hope is that “chance” somewhere out there in the universe brings them back to life—it’s a big universe, good luck! But anyway, yes Aquinas is right for once [ive never read his stuff but from what people have quoted from him on this forum this is the only one I see that is true]. Your last couple of sentences---no we are not automatons or puppets, we are a lot a lot a lot more complex than that. This part of the sentence is correct “So according to this there is nothing we do on our own account; our thoughts and actions are completely determined in every way”. We do have a purpose, we do make choices although not freely. That’s beauty in the deception of freewill. It really is an amazing concept that satan has used to “deceive the whole world”. How many on earth is at home with this deception? BILLIONS. If that’s not a proof of God existence, man I don’t know what else to say.

Philosophical determinism, the general metaphysical view (or what you call ‘atheists determinism’), is not the same as divine determinism, as I’ve already pointed out. 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.

Anyway many may think that even with divine determinism we serve no purpose. Thanks to the church who don’t teach what our purpose is, of course many will not know and it makes the divine determinism that you state viable, but to give a short answer to counter what you say, one purpose of this life on earth is to learn or get a knowledge of good and evil and that is why God has first given us an “experience of evil to humble us” so when He makes everything right, well you get the picture.

What you describe is an example of moral turpitude, and an outright contradiction. Evil is either wrong or it is not. 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.

Is this not a truth? Don’t scholars and theologians of today look at scripture and gleen a small truth out of it (strain out a gnat) and from that the turn that simple verse or truth to something hard to swallow. My bad they swallow a camel and never really get the truth because of all the other stuff they try to say makes this verse what it is. I.E. “this was only said in Matthew and Matthew was gentile so this only pertains to gentiles” or “Johns gospel is more esoteric than the synoptic gospels so its doesn’t necessarily mean this or that”. How about “well Paul was never really a apostle so he shouldn’t be trusted in his writings”. Yet again Jesus’ saying proves to be true, well actually turns also into a prophecy that came true, which should be proof enough of the truth of the bible. And theres many many more NT prophecies that have or is still being fulfilled that shows that the scriptures is true.

Theologians gleaning a small truth out of an ancient tome might be okay for believers but that isn’t an argument that’s going to convince the entire world.


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.

Look at how many, in all religions, believe in a hell. Does this discredit your argument? [only a sick sick individual would really believe in a hell and unfortunately we have billions who do]

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.

No No. Creation and existence in not the same. Yes if you change creation to existence then your argument stands but God [the Father] cannot be a created being. Hes in existence but not in creation.

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.

 

[IndieVisible]

Well prove it.

Why is there proof needed one way or the other?

 

[nrg]

Is this not done with the doctrines of religions, even inside the same religions? Theology or theologians come up with doctrines, “present them” for peer review, some reject it some accept it or believe it.

Those peer reviewing are not independent of the religion, the doctrines do not have specific guidilines to follow like the scientific method does and the scientific community only rejects something if it deviates from the scientific method, it's not that "some accept, some don't" without any reason. So, no, this part is not done the same way as religious doctrines.

Same thing with science is it not? It just amazes me how those who believe in a God is discredited as people who don’t think or just blindly believe in something. Now I know a lot of people do do this, but what about those who actually do “search for the truth”. What does the word search mean?

The word "search" in the scientific sense means "testing and analyzing according to the scientific method".

What?! If that was true then you wouldnt have those who disagree in science. In otherwords from some who disagree in science "this [place whatever you want here] is evidence as long as you believe its evidence"

Um, the disagreements in science is about hypotheses about the details of large scale models. It has nothing to do with what some consider to be evidence and some don't.

Answering your questions in order
1 & 2 & 3. Bad translations by so called scholars, biased and non biased.

Biased scholars are allowed to take on the responsibility of trying to falsify scripture, and then what he discovers represents the faith at whole?!

4. In a lot of ways it does. And I said bible translations and some interpretations can be wrong, I didn’t say the scriptures.

What I meant was, does the scriptures at least get reworked if their claims were falsified, or would you just blame it on the translation?

Some could also say this for the study of ghosts and the paranormal,

Wich is not done credited by scientists following the scientific method.

Well that would take probably a full post to fully explain just one.

Go ahead, I've got time on my hands. Just list any empirical evidence, produced by credited people independent of the religion that follows the scientific method. I sneak peeked in the post, and I get the feeling you don't quite understand how the scientific method works. I'll copy-paste from a list I made in another thread, with a source and everything. This is what your empirical evidence has to be:

According to Hugh G Gauch, Jr's Scientific Method in Practice (the ISBN number is 0521017084 if you want to find it easier at the library) in chapters 5-8, this is the criteria for a statement or proof to follow the scientific method. They are:

• Consistent
• Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, per the Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
• Progressive (refines previous theories)
• Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Maybe to better explain why it could take more rationale is because you have to unlearn all that you had learned all your life about something taught by the churches out there and start anew, learn the real truth and still keep the faith even with all the “so called” evidences out there to disprove what you believe.

Um, it's not that hard to just test the "so called" evidence you speak of and see if it follows the scientific method, through independent researchers, and then decide afterwards. I fail to see why you absolutely need faith.

Take a doctrine of a church, see if it matches all scripture and the precepts and principles without contradicting in ANY one spot.

Um, so not testing the scriptures and see if they contradict science before you pull out doctrines to begin with?

Wow. Its amazing. Non-believers think believers are mindless drones and believers think the same about non-believers. I guess all believers are believers just blind believers.

Not really. If you really do your homework, or take courses about the science and get credited, you can not only understand how the scientific evidence works but you can test them by yourself, empirically, and you can study extensive documentation about how the scientific evidence was produced. Believers, however, do accept the scriptures by blind faith.

I guess all those who believe something done by scientists and they didn’t actually do or see the experiment or observe what the scientist observe but accept that persons word or the peer review of it are just blind believers also.

You can never hold absolute knowledge, you can only have better supported guesses in the end. That can, however, be measured through rational means. Non-believers trusting scientific evidence done by credited scientists produced in experiments they didn't take part in but is peer reviewed aren't following perfect knowledge, but it is more reasonable than the opposite wich is to disbelieve it.

Before you try to counter that think of all those who fallen for the myth of man made global warming.

Um, I've got a feeling you're proving my point. I've taken time to really check the reports supplied by the UN's climate panel if they really are done by credited scientists, have been peer-reviewed and point to man made global warming, and I haven't checked every single one, but every one I have checked I've discovered that yes, in fact, they do. What have you done, scientifically, to hold the viewpoint that man made global warming is a hoax?

 

[nrg]

One is first hand, the other is not.

What difference does that make? So, if you say "those accusations of that man seem incomplete", and I say "I saw him! I'm 100% sure he did it!", am I automatically more reliable? You don't think I should supply evidence supporting that he commited a crime to begin with, and then is tested through forensic means?

Yes, and then we conceptualize the mathematical model. Now we are two steps removed from reality.

Explain the rationale for drawing that conclusion, please.

YOU are the world. YOU are the spiritual experience. How do YOU work?

Um, I work through chemical inpulses in my brain, and those are known to mailfunction and be really easy to play tricks with. Scizophrenia is an example of the former, what illusionists do is an example of the latter.

There is no model. Religion and Science attempt to provide models, but they fall far short of actual reality.

... Evidence for this claim, please.

A great deal of that work is in quieting down the thinking, logical, rational mind. It can only be approached via the intuitive mind.

You mean, you stop rationalizing things, wich lead you to be considerably easier to fool or fall victim of illusions, and you see the truth?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In other words, I use the word "God" when I am speaking to believers so we can have a common handle for discussion. However, it is only a temporary handle.

But if you're using the word to describe one thing and they're using the word to describe something else, then you don't have a "common handle" you have confusion of terminology.

Same difference: thought is behind fear and other emotionally driven, automatic responses. It's just that in the examples you give, they are already hard-wired in.

Not necessarily, but my point was that they aren't rational.

It is not the same kind of knowledge. Knowledge of "God" requires exactly the opposite of ordinary knowledge, in that one must first empty oneself (kenosis; no-mind; emptiness) as compared to acquisition of data. Ordinary, acquired knowledge can only produce ideas and concepts about God, and only of God as an object. True knowledge of the divine essence is totally intimate.

Again: you're putting the cart before the horse. If you don't think me having a "superficial" knowledge of God is as good as an intimate knowledge of God, fine... but you still agree that if God exists, then a "superficial" knowledge of him would be an indicator of his existence, don't you?

It is "our only way of knowing thing"s because that is the concept of learning that you are socially indoctrinated with. Practices such as Zen show you a way of shedding your indoctrination so that you can see with new vision. Conceptual thought is a mostly Western view, but there are other pathways to knowledge, namely Higher Consciousness, which conceptual thought cannot access. People who are stuck in conceptual thought patterns cannot see any other way of apprehending reality, so they see all other ways as invalid. Conceptual thought, especially that of Science, has become somewhat of a doctrine, or rather, dogma, in itself.

Okay... so you say "higher consciousness" is a source of knowledge; how do you confirm this?

It only works for the sphere of the phenomenal world.

But it does work for the phenomenal world, which is my point: if evidence for God in the phenomenal world is impossible, then God is not part of the phenomenal world... i.e. God does not physically exist.

Whether this means that God "exists spiritually" but is physically impotent or that God simply doesn't exist in any sense is indeterminate; the point, though, would be that God doesn't exist physically. If you want to appreciate God as solely "spiritual", then that's up to you. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm only trying to address physical existence.

As for the world of the spirit, there is virtually no evidence which points to it, and yet, as I mentioned earlier, it is right under our very noses. It has to do with the way we see things. In other words, our vision must be corrected first.

Again: believe what you want about the "world of the spirit". When I talk about the existence of God, I'm talking about physical existence. I freely admit that God exists in other forms: conceptually, for instance.

The believer who religiously goes to church on Sunday and visits the collection box is perfectly but superficially satisfied that he is doing his duty in a smug sort of way. That is all he requires. But he does not have the kind of intimate knowledge of the divine essence that satisfies.

It feels like you're answering questions other than the ones I'm asking. My point is that if God exists, we can determine this through the means that you call "superficial". That you feel some other form of knowledge is superior to this doesn't change this.

When you have the facts, you don't need any descriptions. The fact is that when you have the facts, the question of existence/non-existence becomes unimportant. It is only important to those who are still nibbling around the edges.

You'd have a factual description, which I'm saying is useful for some purposes.

The analogy is of someone who is missing the point by insisting on knowing the details (ie; measurements) about something, rather than paying attention to what is really important.

I could see that meaning in the story; I just didn't see how it's relevant. I'm not asking about the "details"; I'm asking about the very thing itself. To use your analogy, I'm not asking about the species of bird feather used for the flights of the arrow that shot me, I'm asking whether I've been shot at all.

There is no assumption about it at all, since it is a direct experience, and not an object of conceptual thought.

It seems like there are a number of assumptions inherent in that concept.

But deriving meaning from the experience is not the point; the experience itself is the point.

You're sitting here making arguments based on "the experience". It seems to me that you have no issue with trying to derive meaning from it.

Divine essence and the Ordinary are realities that can be experienced and seen. They are non-conceptual because they do not involve the thinking mind in order to see them. Part of the process of this direct seeing into the true nature of reality is when all dualities suddenly are realized as being one. We see that the Ordinary is infused with the Infinite nature. The physical world then becomes transformed right before us. What is realized is that it was there all the time. The difference is that we now see reality as it actually appears, rather than how our conceptual mind has been telling us how it is supposed to appear.

If they're really non-conceptual, then what should I make of you expressing things about them conceptually?

Yes, exactly. That is why we need to discard the conceptual map, and locate another kind of map. This other kind of map is the intuitive mind. It is the pathway we have been seeking all along, but were using the conceptual, intellectual map which only leads us round and round. Science is no closer to real understanding of the universe than ever, in spite of its great advances in astrophysics. In fact, in recent years, it finds itself only confirming what Buddhism has been telling us for centuries.

Arrgh. My point is that you're using a "conceptual, intellectual map"! You have to in order to talk about it at all!

Linguistic communication is conceptual expression. If you have no concepts, you have no language. If you were actually expressing something without concepts, your posts here would be blank, because you would not be employing words.

If your words have meaning, then you're employing the sort of "conceptual map" that you say we should discard. If you've actually discarded your "conceptual map", then we can completely disregard what you're saying here because we know it is devoid of meaning. IOW, you're just flapping your gums.

Again, this is fine for ordinary reality, but we need a different kind of map for the realm of the divine.

Well, if this isn't special pleading, then I don't know what is.

It does'nt matter: at the heart of yoga is union with the divine essence. As I said, it can be used for fitness, but what I am asking you is what is it exactly that is generating fitness and health within the yoga practice? It goes much deeper than you are painting it.

Oh, I totally agree. I'm not talking about Yoga itself, I'm talking about the way that some people in the West use concepts that were derived from Yoga.

Many Westerners, especially Christians, try to discredit and belittle Eastern practices by labeling them as 'self-improvement' routines, suggesting that they are little more than something akin to getting a manicure and shampoo at the beauty salon.

And I'm not doing that. What I'm saying is that when a Westerner does employ a superficial self-improvement routine, the fact that they've slapped some Eastern terminology on it doesn't automatically make it deep or meaningful. This doesn't mean that the original Eastern pracitces are superficial; only that they haven't been translated faithfully.

 

[cottage]

Okay heres one experience but I will skip a lot of the details so I can get it out. I can start doing something like playing a video game or something. While doing this I start to think of God and this whole ordeal of freewill. Now being playing video games for nearly all my life I know the difference of getting “lost” in a game compared to my experience. I also know the difference of getting lost in thought while doing something else. This experience is somewhat along those lines but a lot different. Okay now while having this experience a scripture will come to mind “out of the blue” like “all pleasures are at My right hand”. This spoken by God somewhere in Psalms and to me this could also be equated to whatever one could imagine and one finds it pleasurable and actually believe Gods words then that pleasure could will someday come true. So while playing the game still I let my mind wonder. [Remind you that the games I play deal with complex motions and strategy and all that good stuff].

Many things come to mind, a lot of the stuff from the past that I used to thoroughly believe and since “all pleasures are at My right hand” and I had fallen hook line and sinker for someones old teachings back then I start to imagine or picture, actually better stated “experience” this person or persons thoughts or teachings. All may be going well until something “pops” up that just don’t match the scriptures or makes me suspicious of what it is I was experiencing. So I do like my motto says “question everything”. So this is where God sends me into an experience to see why or how this person or persons came to view or think the way they thought. Its not just an experience of questioning something like a thesis someone wrote, no its like I “become” that person and see how and why they thought this or that and how they came to that conclusion. [Meanwhile I am still playing this video game or something]. Its not just thinking and its more than just deep thought.

Anyway I as God leads me further and further I almost always come to a “AHA point” and some scriptures come to mind and God shows me that although “all pleasures are at My right hand” many people have taken it too far and gone out of bounds of scripture. If I was to relate this to something I would relate it to time travel. I used to thoroughly believe that the bible had nothing to say about it specifically yet in a way this is like it. Its also being able to see or experience someone elses experience without being that person or at that time. Yeah I know it sounds simple and “everyones probably had some sort of experience like it” yet to explain the difference in them is too difficult to do. The best way to explain it is if one has this type of experience and don’t know the truth then like my experiences show me, their imaginations can run wild and they eventually get away from the truth. And it’s the opposite if one knows the truth and have this experience, they could be confident that if it actually stays in the boundaries of the truth then truly “all pleasures are at My right hand”.

After the “Aha moment” I snap back and realize what happened, not saying that I didn’t know what was happening while it was happening but I think you get my drift. I see where this person or persons have gone away from the scriptures. Meanwhile I continue playing the game like nothing ever happened.

I didn’t throw in many scriptures to back up what I say but basically a good one or two to go with this…nah then I would have to explain those. Well there one of my many experiences brought to you briefly….Whew I finally got something out after all this timeJ

Thank you. But it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I suppose I was expecting some form of revelation, but instead what you describe appears to be reflection followed by rationalization. There is a psychological explanation for the way we absorb knowledge, and creatively solve problems, which has exact similarities with what you describe. After thinking intensely about some matter there is gestation period during which we are no longer concentrating on the problem, and some time after this ideas pop into our heads as per the Ah Ha! moment and help to resolve the issues. I have certainly experienced this phenomenon myself.

 

[godnotgod]

What difference does that make? So, if you say "those accusations of that man seem incomplete", and I say "I saw him! I'm 100% sure he did it!", am I automatically more reliable? You don't think I should supply evidence supporting that he commited a crime to begin with, and then is tested through forensic means?

Of course, but your analogy is erroneous to begin with. The first hand experience I was originally referring to is internal, while the other is viewed and judged by someone else from the outside who never had the experience.

Explain the rationale for drawing that conclusion, please.
Um, I work through chemical inpulses in my brain, and those are known to mailfunction and be really easy to play tricks with. Scizophrenia is an example of the former, what illusionists do is an example of the latter.

If you have a chemical imbalance and think you are Jesus, you are deluded just as much as if it were a psychological state. The enlightened mind knows the difference between delusion and reality. That is what enlightenment is.

... Evidence for this claim, please. You mean, you stop rationalizing things, which lead you to be considerably easier to fool or fall victim of illusions, and you see the truth?

You have just provided a good example of how this occurs. No. It is the faulty rational mind that leads to illusion. How else do you think you are fooled? That is the point: it is your own mind, which you trust, that is fooling you.

Where there is no reasoning in the way to obscure one's vision, there is no chance for error. You seem to think that reason is infallible, but when coupled with one's emotions and desires, it becomes somewhat bent. Hitler reasoned that Jews were inferior and should be exterminated. In his mind (and in the minds of millions of others) this was considered logical.

 

[godnotgod]

But if you're using the word to describe one thing and they're using the word to describe something else, then you don't have a "common handle" you have confusion of terminology.

I am simply speaking the same language that they are. I know how they are using the term, so I am not confused. By speaking their language and using their logic, they don't become any more confused than they already are. In fact, it can lead to them seeing the erroneous nature of their own premise.

When you speak to children, you speak to them in their own understanding of things, do you not? If you start an argument with them, they will take up the defensive, driving a wedge between you and them.

Not necessarily, but my point was that they aren't rational.

The outcome is irrational, but the basis is reasoning, although it is no longer thought out, as it has become part of one's automatic behavior. Irrational fears such as phobias are automatic responses, but entail an ingrained thought process which leads to the erroneous conclusion.

Again: you're putting the cart before the horse. If you don't think me having a "superficial" knowledge of God is as good as an intimate knowledge of God, fine... but you still agree that if God exists, then a "superficial" knowledge of him would be an indicator of his existence, don't you?

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

Okay... so you say "higher consciousness" is a source of knowledge; how do you confirm this?

By making efforts to attain higher states of consciousness.

But it does work for the phenomenal world, which is my point: if evidence for God in the phenomenal world is impossible, then God is not part of the phenomenal world... i.e. God does not physically exist.

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. You are looking for traces of God, when God leaves no trace. Therefore, to find God, you must use a completely different approach. All of your efforts at uncovering 'evidence' via the ordinary, rational, thinking mind will fail. Knowledge of God (again, that word) will only come about once that has occurred, and will reveal to you that the rational mind's concepts of 'physical' and 'spiritual' are nothing more than illusions. As I said earlier, the thinking mind must first be quieted down before the intuitive mind comes into play. Then, clear vision is possible.

Whether this means that God "exists spiritually" but is physically impotent or that God simply doesn't exist in any sense is indeterminate; the point, though, would be that God doesn't exist physically. If you want to appreciate God as solely "spiritual", then that's up to you. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm only trying to address physical existence.

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

Again: believe what you want about the "world of the spirit". When I talk about the existence of God, I'm talking about physical existence. I freely admit that God exists in other forms: conceptually, for instance.

When you say 'physical' you automatically imply 'non-physical'. Are they two distinct realities, or two aspects of the same reality?

It feels like you're answering questions other than the ones I'm asking. My point is that if God exists, we can determine this through the means that you call "superficial". That you feel some other form of knowledge is superior to this doesn't change this.

A God so determined will be a God of concept only. You can then conveniently believe in such a God as if it were real. Such a God is a finite, predictable, and therefore frozen concept of God. That is the Abrahamic God.

You'd have a factual description, which I'm saying is useful for some purposes.

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.

I could see that meaning in the story; I just didn't see how it's relevant. I'm not asking about the "details"; I'm asking about the very thing itself. To use your analogy, I'm not asking about the species of bird feather used for the flights of the arrow that shot me, I'm asking whether I've been shot at all.

There is the thing itself, and then there is the measurement, the details, of the thing itself. If you want to know if you have been shot, then go take a closer look.

...TBC......

 

[nrg]

The first hand experience I was originally referring to is internal, while the other is viewed and judged by someone else from the outside who never had the experience.

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.

If you have a chemical imbalance and think you are Jesus, you are deluded just as much as if it were a psychological state. The enlightened mind knows the difference between delusion and reality. That is what enlightenment is.

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

You have just provided a good example of how this occurs. No. It is the faulty rational mind that leads to illusion.

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

How else do you think you are fooled?

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.

Where there is no reasoning in the way to obscure one's vision, there is no chance for error.

Empirical evidence, please.

You seem to think that reason is infallible,

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

Hitler reasoned that Jews were inferior and should be exterminated. In his mind (and in the minds of millions of others) this was considered logical.

Indeed, and the propaganda and the techniques he used was aimed at lowering the potential for the German people to think things through. Take, for example, the chanting at the rallies. It makes you solely concentrate on the message in the speeches, and stops you from thinking it through, you only repeat it until it becomes subconcious. How does chanting improve concentration of mind? | Namsankirtanyoga