The Debate of God.

[Thief]

Stop your trickery! Just answer the question you claim you understand the answer to! Otherwise, why not just go for it and admit you don't know?

No one owes you a response.
Wanna stand your ground?
Take a stance.

 

[godnotgod]

It looks like just another woo-peddling scam to me.

You don't even know what 'woo' is. You're just parroting others and looking on from the outside, your nose pressed against the window pane, in exactly the same way the religious fundie does.

 

[godnotgod]

No one owes you a response.
Wanna stand your ground?
Take a stance.

OK. You can't answer the question.

Now go play with your rice paper.

BTW, I see you call yourself a 'rogue theologian'. While the first part may be true, you are miles away from the second.

 

[Thief]

OK. You can't answer the question.

Now go play with your rice paper.

Ok...and without a declaration on your part....You're done here?

 

[Looncall]

<snip>



< snip>



What is nonsense is that, while you acknowledge vibration, which is crest and wave, you ignore the necessity of silence. Use your head: what do you suppose sound is heard against? Other sounds? Come now. Just as you cannot have all light without shadow, you cannot have all sound without silence.



I am not here to provide 'evidence', as that is only within the sphere of Logic and Reason. Ultimate Reality is beyond Logic and Reason.

Do you agree so far with the argument that a background, or field exists for what we experience in the phenomenal world, as I have outlined?

One could easily have light without shadow. In fact, that is what the early universe is shown to be like. "Heard against"? Word salad!

If you cannot provide evidence for the truth of your assertions, they are just so much empty words.

Beyond logic and reason? That sounds a lot like "does not exist" to me.

You have not shown any reason to accept your notion of a background. Where's your evidence?

 

[godnotgod]

One could easily have light without shadow. In fact, that is what the early universe is shown to be like.

That's ridiculous. If that is what the 'early universe' looked like (if it were totally light, you would be totally engulfed by it and would not be able to discern it as light) what did it look like just prior to the early universe? Must have been darkness, from which the light emerged.

Light is essential to darkness as darkness is essential to light. All opposites are relative one to the other. We know what one is via of what the other is. This is a basic principle of the phenomenal dual world.

If you cannot provide evidence for the truth of your assertions, they are just so much empty words.

Beyond logic and reason? That sounds a lot like "does not exist" to me.

Just because something cannot be explained via logic and reason does not mean it is not a valid reality. Quantum Mechanics cannot be explained via of classical logic and reason. Does that render it non-existent? Is it conceivable to you that there is another path of knowing outside of conceptual knowledge?

You have not shown any reason to accept your notion of a background. Where's your evidence?

I already gave it to you. Sound is heard against the background of silence; light is seen against the background of total darkness; solids are perceived as solids against the background of space; all shapes are discerned as such against the background of the shapeless. If you fail to see and understand that simple fact in the following image, then this discussion is over.

When you go to Home Depot to have a paint chip matched, the chip you bring in is placed under a laser scanner and compared to a neutral reference chip that is colorless. The computer figures out a formula based on this comparison of color against a colorless background.

 

[godnotgod]

Ok...and without a declaration on your part....You're done here?

Every time you shift your attention to me instead of answering the question at hand, you tear your rice paper.

You are the one who made the reference to the words of the prophets as being primary, and yet do not seem to understand one of the most important lines in scripture from the lips of Yeshu himself.

"'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."
Matthew 15:8

 

[Looncall]

That's ridiculous. If that is what the 'early universe' looked like (if it were totally light, you would be totally engulfed by it and would not be able to discern it as light) what did it look like just prior to the early universe? Must have been darkness, from which the light emerged.

Light is essential to darkness as darkness is essential to light. All opposites are relative one to the other. We know what one is via of what the other is. This is a basic principle of the phenomenal dual world.

Light is electromagnetic particles. They exist even if there is not a place where they are absent (that is what darkness means). Your talk of a dual world is just word salad.

As far as we know just now, it is meaningless to speak of what it looked like before the early universe.

Just because something cannot be explained via logic and reason does not mean it is not a valid reality. Quantum Mechanics cannot be explained via of classical logic and reason. Does that render it non-existent? Is it conceivable to you that there is another path of knowing outside of conceptual knowledge?

Please justify your comment about Quantum Mechanics. As far as I could tell, I was using logic and reason when I studied QM at university. Have you been taken in by Chopra's silly quantum mysticism?

"Path of knowing outside of conceptual knowledge" is word salad.

I already gave it to you. Sound is heard against the background of silence; light is seen against the background of total darkness; solids are perceived as solids against the background of space; all shapes are discerned as such against the background of the shapeless.

More nonsensical rambling. Not all combinations of words convey anything meaningful. Repeating nonsense does not render it sensible. I do not agree that any of these statements are accurate or even meaningful.

If you fail to see and understand that simple fact in the following image, then this discussion is over.

When you go to Home Depot to have a paint chip matched, the chip you bring in is placed under a laser scanner and compared to a neutral reference chip that is colorless. The computer figures out a formula based on this comparison of color against a colorless background.

The fact that some operations are carried out by comparison does not indicate that there is any so-called "ultimate reality" as you claim.

 

[confused453]

Sound and light are just human/animal things. In reality what we call sound, is just air vibrations. No sound in space, where there's no gas. Same thing for light. It's just photon particles. Isn't cosmic microwave background radiation proof of universe cooling down, and that once it was the same as inside of a star? That means no shadows during that time
I still don't get you, godnotgod. Your Ultimate Reality is just your imagination.

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR]The fact that some operations are carried out by comparison does not indicate that there is any so-called "ultimate reality" as you claim.

You're not following the argument here: Let's stick to what I have presented without proceeding ahead. I simply want to establish that, in the sphere of the phenomenal world, all things are seen and understood against a background or field necessary to distinguishing them as such.

 

[godnotgod]

Light is electromagnetic particles. They exist even if there is not a place where they are absent (that is what darkness means). Your talk of a dual world is just word salad.

If light is electromagnetic particles, then it is measurable. But if there was only light in an early universe as you claim, it is unmeasurable as light would wash out the measurement itself, since any measurement is made against some reference point or points, in this case, darkness. In such a hypothetical world, nothing could be distinguished in any manner whatsoever, since to do so, shadow would be required. Even if an all-light condition were possible, how do you account for the later emergence of darkness?

In such a world, there could be no light source, since all is light, making everywhere a source. This is bordering on the ridiculous, esp when speaking about an all-light universe, which must include the things that comprise a universe, such things being discernible as things due to the existence of solids and shadows.

In fact, to say that there was only light is to claim the presence of an absolute, which later was transformed into a relative state. If that is so, then it cannot have been an absolute, unless the transformation was an illusion.

In addition, if the condition of an early universe were that it was in a state of 100% light, (which can only be determined by the presence of darkness) then, by default, it's pre-condition must have been 100% darkness, or more properly, 100% void, from which both light and darkness emerged simultaneously.

Returning to the current phenomenal world at hand, light and darkness occur together, the one dependent upon the other. Now, having said that, one can create a room which is flooded by light, and claim that only light exists, but that is an error in logic, since the room must first be dark in order for light to be manifested, in exactly the same way that a glass must first be empty in order to be full. We can prove that by simply turning off the light source in the room, which would immediately result in total darkness, being the prerequisite to the presence of light.

Emptiness is to fullness as darkness is to light as space is to solid as nothing is to everything. It is these relative, dual states that allow for the manifestation of the phenomenal world as we know it.

In fact, in a fully lit room, one can still make out where wall meets ceiling and floor, which is only possible due to the existence of shadow.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod said:
I already gave it to you. Sound is heard against the background of silence; light is seen against the background of total darkness; solids are perceived as solids against the background of space; all shapes are discerned as such against the background of the shapeless.

More nonsensical rambling. Not all combinations of words convey anything meaningful. Repeating nonsense does not render it sensible. I do not agree that any of these statements are accurate or even meaningful.

You must have some sort of mental block against facts, or you simply refuse to admit the truth when it is placed right under your nose.

You disagree that form is only discernible against a formless background? Can't you SEE that? Look, with your own two eyes:

 

[godnotgod]

Sound and light are just human/animal things. In reality what we call sound, is just air vibrations. No sound in space, where there's no gas. Same thing for light. It's just photon particles. Isn't cosmic microwave background radiation proof of universe cooling down, and that once it was the same as inside of a star? That means no shadows during that time
I still don't get you, godnotgod. Your Ultimate Reality is just your imagination.

Nothing you say here negates the fact that light and darkness, sound and silence, go hand in hand.

If Ultimate Reality is only imagined, then how is it that you can determine the existence of the phenomenal world at all? That is to say, what reference are you using to say that the phenomenal world exists?

 

[Looncall]

If light is electromagnetic particles, then it is measurable. But if there was only light in an early universe as you claim, it is unmeasurable as light would wash out the measurement itself, since any measurement is made against some reference point or points, in this case, darkness. In such a hypothetical world, nothing could be distinguished in any manner whatsoever, since to do so, shadow would be required. Even if an all-light condition were possible, how do you account for the later emergence of darkness?

In such a world, there could be no light source, since all is light, making everywhere a source. This is bordering on the ridiculous, esp when speaking about an all-light universe, which must include the things that comprise a universe, such things being discernible as things due to the existence of solids and shadows.

In fact, to say that there was only light is to claim the presence of an absolute, which later was transformed into a relative state. If that is so, then it cannot have been an absolute, unless the transformation was an illusion.

In addition, if the condition of an early universe were that it was in a state of 100% light, (which can only be determined by the presence of darkness) then, by default, it's pre-condition must have been 100% darkness, or more properly, 100% void, from which both light and darkness emerged simultaneously.

Returning to the current phenomenal world at hand, light and darkness occur together, the one dependent upon the other. Now, having said that, one can create a room which is flooded by light, and claim that only light exists, but that is an error in logic, since the room must first be dark in order for light to be manifested, in exactly the same way that a glass must first be empty in order to be full. We can prove that by simply turning off the light source in the room, which would immediately result in total darkness, being the prerequisite to the presence of light.

Emptiness is to fullness as darkness is to light as space is to solid as nothing is to everything. It is these relative, dual states that allow for the manifestation of the phenomenal world as we know it.

In fact, in a fully lit room, one can still make out where wall meets ceiling and floor, which is only possible due to the existence of shadow.

In the early universe, the energy density was so high that material particles could not exist. The universe was filled with light. Whether it could be measured is irrelevant. As the universe expanded the energy density was reduced enough for particles to be stable. Eventually they clumped together to make the stars etc we see now.

What I strenuously deny is your notion that something can exist only in the presence of its opposite. That is simply not true.

I recommend that you look beyond your abstractions to things as they actually are.

 

[confused453]

Nothing you say here negates the fact that light and darkness, sound and silence, go hand in hand.

If Ultimate Reality is only imagined, then how is it that you can determine the existence of the phenomenal world at all? That is to say, what reference are you using to say that the phenomenal world exists?

Light is needed for our animal bodies to live, and sound to communicate. Light and sound have nothing to do with god, religion, or spirituality, in any way. I know this world is the one and only true world because I live in it and perceive it by my senses, and as far as I know everybody else too (except maybe those in psychiatric hospitals Unless you publish your findings using scientific empirical evidence, all the stuff you're saying about ultimate reality is fictional.

 

[godnotgod]

Light is needed for our animal bodies to live, and sound to communicate. Light and sound have nothing to do with god, religion, or spirituality, in any way. I know this world is the one and only true world because I live in it and perceive it by my senses, and as far as I know everybody else too (except maybe those in psychiatric hospitals Unless you publish your findings using scientific empirical evidence, all the stuff you're saying about ultimate reality is fictional.

Well in that case, you cannot possibly know it to be the 'only true world', since the five senses are proven to be unreliable. But if they were reliable, and this is the 'only true world', then that makes this world an absolute, as there would be no other world to compare it to. But we know that this world is temporal. It arises and subsides, comes and goes, which fits the description of it being illusory, rather than real. In addition, for you to be able to say that this world is the 'only true world', there must, by definition, also exist a 'not-only true world'. But since this world is temporal, it is the 'not-only true world' and the 'only true world' is the one against which the illusory world is manifested. In other words, this world is not real, but its background is real, because its background does not change, was present when this world came into existence, and will be present when this world is dissolved.

Basically, you have it backwards.

As far as light and dark, I am only trying to establish that one occurs in relation to the other, as in field and ground, being and non-being. We are not yet in the realm of Ultimate Reality.

But once again, I ask you: how do you know that the phenomenal world exists? What is the reference by which you are determining that it is the 'only true world'?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Dark is the absence of light. Light is energy, dark is the absence of that energy.
Just as cold is the absence of heat. Heat is energy, cold is the absence of that energy.

Light does not require dark to exist, nor does matter require a vacuum to exist.

 

[confused453]

...how do you know that the phenomenal world exists? What is the reference by which you are determining that it is the 'only true world'?

All our senses are reliable when used responsibly!

I have not experienced any other world/s, nor do I know anybody who did. But I do know that some drugs may bend brain's perception of reality, creating illusions or hallucinations of false/fictional reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Dark is the absence of light. Light is energy, dark is the absence of that energy.
Just as cold is the absence of heat. Heat is energy, cold is the absence of that energy.

Light does not require dark to exist, nor does matter require a vacuum to exist.

Think about this: in order to fill a room with light, darkness must first be the case. Were it not so, the room would always be lit. But the fact that when you switch the light off the darkness returns, that tells us that darkness is the default condition in an on/off scenario. You cannot have on without off, just as you cannot have wave without trough. Darkness is the passive condition against which light is manifested.

Matter may not require a vacuum to exist, but it requires space. Otherwise, it would just be an undifferentiated blob without form.

 

[confused453]

Think about this: in order to fill a room with light, darkness must first be the case. Were it not so, the room would always be lit. But the fact that when you switch the light off the darkness returns, that tells us that darkness is the default condition in an on/off scenario. You cannot have on without off, just as you cannot have wave without trough. Darkness is the passive condition against which light is manifested.

Matter may not require a vacuum to exist, but it requires space. Otherwise, it would just be an undifferentiated blob without form.

Darkness is never a case because there's the cosmic microwave background radiation. In order to fill a room with light you need lots of photon particles (energy). Why are you using properties of this reality to describe your ultimate reality? I'd imagine a different reality would have totally different properties unknown/unimaginable to us. Why should the ultimate reality be anything like this reality, with you totally controlling it?