The Big Bang as evidence for God

[ArtieE]

The atheist and the theist are both right and wrong. What's difficult about recognizing everyone only having partial truths, even if contradictory to one another?

Either god(s) exist or they don't. And if theists are right and there are god(s), depending on which god(s) actually exist, some theists are right and some are wrong. Unless you think that god(s) can exist and not exist at the same time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is just preachy rhetoric, you have no idea if there is actually a "universal reality". All you have is your personal experience, and the assumptions you attach to that experience.
My guess is that you've had some experience of samadhi and read a whole lot into that experience, based on your theistic preconceptions.

Are you suggesting that I do not rely on my own direct experience after practicing the conceptual directions of the teaching.....but rather just take the second hand word of other's conceptual rhetoric... If you think that it is the concepts that are important, and not the reality for which the concept stands for....then just say so...I will then understand why you resent my explaining this common error of the minds of many people...particularly when it comes to religion..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But as I said before, atheism is exactly like theism in the sense they are both fingers pointing to ultimate reality, like the blind men touching parts of the elephant proclaim the elephant is like a rope, or a wall, or a fan, or a spear, and so forth as they perceive parts of the whole, arguing with one another who is right. The single bright moon, make all of them right, and all of them partial.

I'm still not convinced, and even the assumption of an "ultimate reality" is tenuous and speculative. Then there are different beliefs around about what "ultimate reality" might be, but these views are often contradictory, so they cannot all be correct. Theism and atheism in particular look like contradictory rather than partial views.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you suggesting that I do not rely on my own direct experience after practicing the conceptual directions of the teaching......

No, I'm suggesting that you are having an experience and then interpreting it according to your beliefs. One person will have an experience of samadhi and explain it in terms of neuroscience, another will have the same experience and explain it as an experience of God. Such experiences can be profound, and it's possible to read a lot into them,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I'm suggesting that you are having an experience and then interpreting it according to your beliefs. One person will have an experience of samadhi and explain it in terms of neuroscience, another will have the same experience and explain it as an experience of God. Such experiences can be profound, and it's possible to read a lot into them,

Beyond the blind men describing the elephant...is the elephant...beyond the fingers pointing to the moon...lies the moon.....the transcendent reality is beyond the scope of conceptualization...and since I presume we can agree that as an atheist, you presently do not and will not accept the possibility of there actually being a actual reality beyond the physical that is supernatural.....is there any point in discussing this further at this point?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Beyond the blind men describing the elephant...is the elephant...beyond the fingers pointing to the moon...lies the moon.....the transcendent reality is beyond the scope of conceptualization...and since I presume we can agree that as an atheist, you presently do not and will not accept the possibility of there actually being a actual reality beyond the physical that is supernatural.....is there any point in discussing this further at this point?

"Transcendent reality" and "beyond" are both assumptions, both concepts. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, what I'm objecting to here is the way you state this as a fact when it is in actually a belief.

You have your personal experience, and then you have your assumptions about that experience. I'm not convinced that you are able to clearly distinguish between those two things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Transcendent reality" and "beyond" are both assumptions, both concepts. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, what I'm objecting to here is the way you state this as a fact when it is in actually a belief.

You have your personal experience, and then you have your assumptions about that experience. I'm not convinced that you are able to clearly distinguish between those two things.

Haha...you can object all you like...reality is not dependent on your belief as to what is or is not true...

So long as you imagine that transcendence can be experienced by the dualistic mind....there is no hope of it being realized...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Haha...you can object all you like...reality is not dependent on your belief as to what is or is not true...

"Reality" isn't dependent on your belief either.

So long as you imagine that transcendence can be experienced by the dualistic mind....there is no hope of it being realized...

I am getting really tired of this straw-man, it's just something you regurgitate when you don't have an answer. We've been through this before, the experience of samadhi and non-duality is not dependent on belief or disbelief. There is the experience of samadhi, and then there is what you read into it, how you interpret it. Clearly you still can't see the distinction, or perhaps you don't want to.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Reality" isn't dependent on your belief either.

I am getting really tired of this straw-man, it's just something you regurgitate when you don't have an answer. We've been through this before, the experience of samadhi and non-duality is not dependent on belief or disbelief. There is the experience of samadhi, and then there is what you read into it, how you interpret it. Clearly you still can't see the distinction, or perhaps you don't want to.

I'm not the one mistaking concepts for reality.....ultimate reality just is what it is... So long as there is a you experiencing anything.....you are far from non-duality....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not the one mistaking concepts for reality.....ultimate reality just is what it is... So long as there is a you experiencing anything.....you are far from non-duality....

Again with the non-duality straw-man, which distracts from the truth that your ideas about "ultimate reality" are in fact just ideas.

 

[Matthew Jordan]

the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.(the paradox of zero) ..bang

my mama told me that. yup

 

[Ben Dhyan]

the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.(the paradox of zero) ..bang

my mama told me that. yup

Yes...and so?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again with the non-duality straw-man, which distracts from the truth that your ideas about "ultimate reality" are in fact just ideas.

Non-duality is not a strawman....it is logical that indivisible conscious aspects of the universe that see themselves separate from the whole can not realize their potential for non-duality...and thus they live in maya...

 

[Windwalker]

I'm still not convinced, and even the assumption of an "ultimate reality" is tenuous and speculative.

I'm not sure how that's actually a question. Do you think when someone speaks of ultimate reality that this is something separate to this reality? What best describes this is that it excludes nothing, but includes everything. Isn't even the pursuit of M-Theory itself seeking that, only from just a physicalist point of view? What exactly do you imagine people are saying when they speak of ultimate reality, or ultimate truth? It would be helpful to hear what you imagine others mean and speak to that.

Then there are different beliefs around about what "ultimate reality" might be, but these views are often contradictory, so they cannot all be correct.

Yes, the beliefs may be contradictory, and no one is arguing the fingers are all correct. I've always used the metaphor loosely, not strictly speaking. I like many paths from the foot of the mountain analogy better. Many times those paths coming up from the foot of the mountain out of necessity have to turn back on themselves, go down instead of up, or maybe into the mountain in a tunnel, etc. Someone taking a look at the paths may conclude they are not all pointing to an ultimate peak. And that may relatively speaking be true. But the peak still exists. The mountain still exists. None one is suggesting the paths are identical, nor that they are straight lines and they all look the same.

Again, what I am saying is that all paths, all truths, even contradictory ones, are part of this whole. The fact of the paths themselves speaks of commonalities. Let me put the fingers pointing metaphor in another light. Some fingers are white, some are black, some are yellow, some point up, some point down, some point left, some point right. But they are all fingers. They are all pointing.

Now, let's take this metaphor of the moon and say that it is this ultimate reality. Ultimate reality does not exist in a place. It is not localized. It is everywhere, at all times, in all places, everywhere and nowhere. So all the fingers are always pointing to it. Don't literalize the moon metaphor. And that, literalizing metaphors, is exactly why I had that lengthy explanation of language as metaphor before. You miss what it points to.

Theism and atheism in particular look like contradictory rather than partial views.

Yet the theist and atheist standing under that single bright moon see no contradiction. I know from experience this is true.

 

[Windwalker]

Theism and atheism in particular look like contradictory rather than partial views.

I want to come back to this to attempt to speak to it further. I answered a few moments ago that, "Yet the theist and atheist standing under that single bright moon see no contradiction. I know from experience this is true." The use of metaphor is really the only way to talk about this so I'm going to do just that. Let's speak of the mountain and the paths.

Think of the theist as someone from Greece, and the atheist as someone from Ireland. They grow up with different manner of dress, different languages, and different worldviews, different modes of thought, etc. But at the Peak, both are standing naked in the field under the Light and see each other as humans. There is no distinction in that moment, no differentiated marks, no languages spoken, no clothing differences, and so forth. But then, as they speak to each other, they recognize the differences between one another, but the shared common realization of one another exposed as they are in the bright light that they both stood within. They realize themselves and one another in relation to that Light that both saw each other in. And so articles of clothing, manners of speech and language, terms, etc, are not seen a points of division, but rather as unique features.

To put this into another language, this "Peak" can be well described as "unitive consciousness". The difference between the theist and the atheist are made not the all-important differences between one another, but rather just languages, the unique colors of the eyes, the customs, and systems of beliefs that the person uses in themselves from their cultures and personalities. The 'ultimate reality' is that which is realized in unitive consciousness. Theism and and atheism are simply points of view, which are not the Realization itself. Unitive consciousness transcends beliefs, all of them. It is the realization of the condition of our being. We are not our beliefs, and our beliefs are simply languages. All language is metaphor. Do not mistake the metaphor for reality itself.

 

[McBell]

Do you believe you can know reality as it is? Or is our understanding of "facts" a mediated reality?

Yes.
At least to some degree.
Though i do acknowledge that I may well be wrong and am willing to alter my views in accordance to the evidence.

I actually recognize that any ideas or beliefs I may have about the ultimate nature of reality, or even just plain old simple things of everyday life is just as meditated and relative as your ideas of facts are. So I most certainly am not trying to speak in favor of my "faith" as though it was facts. No dishonesty there at all. On the other hand, you seem assured that what ideas you hold are able to know the "facts" of the matter 'as it is'. Isn't that being dishonest in favor of your beliefs?

My apologies.
i did not mean to imply that you are being dishonest.
I was merely pointing out that I have seen it taken that far.

Actually, I hold the position that regardless of how sure I am about the "facts", I could be flat out wrong and will alter my beliefs (for lack of a better term) accordingly.
However, I hold a higher standard of evidence than most of the "squeaky wheels" (again, for lack of a better term).

Very good then. But then how do you propose to distinguish what is absolute truth or 'facts' from relative truths?

An "absolute" truth will have no exceptions at all.
Relative truths vary from person to person.

I'll put it this way, I think there is a relationship between truth and facticity, but it's not one where if we can just get to the 'facts' that we know truth.

Agreed.
However, I accept that PoV plays a huge part in discerning the difference between truth and fact.

It's much more subtle and dynamic than that. It lies in our notions of truth itself and the ways in which we interpret fact through them. We don't ever really know reality "as it is". It's all meditated. And as such truth is relative and dynamic. Truth is how we translate reality, and reality is tied to and part of that translation. We live in that "translated reality", and thus "facts" are not separate from that translation.

Which might work fine if one can separate their imagination, wants, needs, desires, emotional attachment, emotional distachment, etc. from the mix.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Non-duality is not a strawman....it is logical that indivisible conscious aspects of the universe that see themselves separate from the whole can not realize their potential for non-duality...and thus they live in maya...

Can't you see all the assumption and belief underlying statements like this?

 

[`mud]

""" ultimate nature of reality """
There is no "absolute truth"
Even 'gravity' depends on relative attractions between other entities.
Everything is relative to every other 'existance' in the Cosmos.
We exist in the soup of the 'reality' of the kettle of everything.
Every photon is dependent on every other photon,
thense the kenitic relationship one to every other.
The 'end' of one wave connects to the next and on to another.
That's the Stuff of the reality of the nature of the ultimate existance.
~
Just a thought along those other thoughts.
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The 'ultimate reality' is that which is realized in unitive consciousness. Theism and and atheism are simply points of view, which are not the Realization itself. Unitive consciousness transcends beliefs, all of them. It is the realization of the condition of our being.

What exactly do you mean by "ultimate reality"? What do you think it looks like?

What exactly do you mean by "unitive consciousness"? What do you think it looks like?

And what exactly do you mean by the "condition of our being"? What is that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can't you see all the assumption and belief underlying statements like this?

You are projecting your own level of evolutionary development on others....be humble....