The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

And when you stand before the mirror....you tell yourself...
What?

And God is not allowed to say...'I AM!'

And you would like to 'think' your line of reason would stand well before Him?

I am merely defining the difference between existence and being. Why are you preaching to me?

Have you come up with an answer to my question about 'becoming as little children' yet?

 

[godnotgod]

Thief,

I don't know whether you've heard this type of argument before (if you've read Hume or Kant or any Theravadin scholars then you probably have), but here goes:

If omnipotence and a beginningless and endless existence are the attributes of a god, then it would appear than the existence of such a being is not possible.

If we wish for an omnipotent god who created the known universe, then this god must also have created the very concept of existence (the existence/non-existence duality), which we know so well as one of the underlying features of what we call space-time. But if we say that god created spacetime and therefore existence itself, then what do we mean when we say that this god "always existed", or that he/she existed before the universe was created?

The suggestion that something existed before the dawn of existence itself is nonsense, unless we allow for some other reality, some "external" universe with its own space-time, where god existed before the creation of our universe, where the creation of our universe was initiated, and where existence/nonexistence were already possibilities.

But if we propose this as a solution, we strip god of omnipotence, as we place him under the constraints of this other universe and its conditions. We are also avoiding the problem, because if god existed before he created our "bubble" of logical and physical laws, then he did it within the confines and rules of some other, larger "bubble" with it's own laws, which must exist beyond the outer edge of our bubble. In this way we can keep trying to displace god to the "outer universe", and run into the same problem every time: we simply subject god to the rules of another, more distant and external location.

In this way, by insisting on god's divine attributes, we deny him existence. And if we insist that he exists, we are forced to deny his "godliness". In this way, logic makes the existence of a god impossible.

This argument supposes the reality of a god separate from his creation, and a creation of existence from physical matter in time. But if what we call existence via creation is not real, but an illusory manifestation, and that the universe itself is the Absolute, then the problem is solved. That is to say, when we remove the screens of Time, Space, and Causation, we see that the universe is the Absolute itself. When we see it through these screens, it is an artifact of some separate inexplicable force, that has a 'before' and 'after' existence. Removing the conceptual screen of Time, we now have everything being manifested as illusion in this eternal Present, which has no beginning nor end. In short, we can say that the Absolute, which is beyond all concepts and form, is expressing itself through temporal form, in the sense of play, which is the missing and crucial ingredient in all of this.

 

[Thief]

I am merely defining the difference between existence and being. Why are you preaching to me?

Have you come up with an answer to my question about 'becoming as little children' yet?

I'm not preaching.
And I don't owe you an answer.

And I think I did so anyway earlier on.
Apparently you didn't like the answer...or you don't understand.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ultimately, you are correct, as reality itself is non-dual, and therefore, what we see as relative opposites are actually a single reality, eg, 'lightdark', 'plusminus', 'soundsilence', etc. All sets of relative opposites are concepts only. We only discriminate them as 'this and that' to satisfy the demands of the conceptual mind.

Orwellian doublethink.

 

[godnotgod]

Orwellian doublethink.

Excuse me, but your clever one shot dismissal of my statement does nothing to negate its veracity. You're just doing that as a means of denial. It won't work.

Can you be honest and just answer the question:

Are light and dark, heat and cold, phenomena along a single continuum or not?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not preaching.
And I don't owe you answer.

And I think I did so anyway earlier on.
Apparently you didn't like the answer...or you don't understand.

Yes, you were preaching, so cut it out.

It's not that you owe me an answer; it's that you don't know the answer to the question, otherwise what is your problem? For several pages now, you keep beating around the bush.

No, your 'answer' did not address the question, so it is YOU who do not understand. The answer you gave did not tell me how learning qualifies a child for entry into Paradise. What does learning have to do with it?

 

[godnotgod]

Darkness and cold are the absence, not the opposite of those things.

Using your argument, can we then state that light and heat are the absence of darkness and cold? What is the difference between your statement and mine? Since they are the virtually the same from different perspectives, then we are talking relative opposites, are we not?

 

[Anatta]

This argument supposes the reality of a god separate from his creation, and a creation of existence from physical matter in time. But if what we call existence via creation is not real, but an illusory manifestation, and that the universe itself is the Absolute, then the problem is solved. That is to say, when we remove the screens of Time, Space, and Causation, we see that the universe is the Absolute itself. When we see it through these screens, it is an artifact of some separate inexplicable force, that has a 'before' and 'after' existence. Removing the conceptual screen of Time, we now have everything being manifested as illusion in this eternal Present, which has no beginning nor end. In short, we can say that the Absolute, which is beyond all concepts and form, is expressing itself through temporal form, in the sense of play, which is the missing and crucial ingredient in all of this.

I admit, the argument only works for an Abrahamic Creator God. More pantheistic concepts like Brahman or the Great Manitou don't really run into the problems I mentioned.

 

[confused453]

Heat is just energy transfer. If you take energy away from stuff it freezes and becomes solid. Heat is not the opposite of cold. The cold stuff is made of the same basic particles as the hot stuff, but it has less energy, which is why it's cold/solid.

I suggest listening to this latest episode of Astronomy Cast where they discuss those things. Like I said before, sound, light, heat, cold have nothing to do with religion, god or spirituality. Those things have everything to do with our physical bodies, which adapted to use those things for navigation and communication abilities. Ep. 268: Energy | Astronomy Cast

Dark may look like the opposite of light to a human who has no idea what light is, because humans rely on light for visual guidance. But in reality light is just photons bouncing or absorbing into stuff.

Darkness is a human's ability not to see. Light is photon particles. Both have nothing to do with each other. It's not like a stick where you have one side opposite to the other.

 

[godnotgod]

Heat is just energy transfer. If you take energy away from stuff it freezes and becomes solid. Heat is not the opposite of cold.

Like I said before, sound, light, heat, cold have nothing to do with religion, god or spirituality.

Dark may look like the opposite of light to a human who has no idea what light is, because humans rely on light for visual guidance. But in reality light is just photons bouncing or absorbing into stuff.

Darkness is a human's ability not to see. Light is photon particles. Both have nothing to do with each other. It's not like a stick where you have one side opposite to the other.

If you walk into a room that is cold, and you apply heat via a heater, the room warms up, and cold is dissipated, correct? When you remove the heat source, the room once again becomes cold, correct? So is there a relationship between the heat produced by the heat source, and the cold in the room? If so, what is that relationship?

In addition, the increase in temperature from a cold room to a heated room is gradual, is it not, making the transition from cold to hot a continuum, correct?

To say that light is just photons does not tell us what light actually is. No one knows what light is, just as no one knows what gravity is.

What does darkness have to do with the human ability to see or not see? That is ridiculous. If you can see, you can discern dark from light.

 

[confused453]

If you walk into a room that is cold, and you apply heat via a heater, the room warms up, and cold is dissipated, correct? When you remove the heat source, the room once again becomes cold, correct? So is there a relationship between the heat produced by the heat source, and the cold in the room? If so, what is that relationship?

If the room is not properly isolated, it would have a similar temperature as outside of the house. So in winter, the room would be cold. The heater creates energy from the electricity it receives from the power lines. While the heater is on, the heat is being transferred into the room's atmosphere. When the heater is off, the energy spreads (because of the bad isolation) towards outside of the house (earth's atmosphere), thus the room becomes cold again.

In addition, the increase in temperature from a cold room to a heated room is gradual, is it not, making the transition from cold to hot a continuum, correct?

When the room's atmosphere receives more energy, the room's temperature increases. But the room is still the same. The room doesn't receive more stuff. The room's gasses just spin faster.

To say that light is just photons does not tell us what light actually is. No one knows what light is, just as no one knows what gravity is.

Actually light is electromagnetic radiation. wave particle duality
Whatever we don't know, we'll find out eventually. Science seems to be the best way so far.

What does darkness have to do with the human ability to see or not see? That is ridiculous. If you can see, you can discern dark from light.

Darkness doesn't exist as a thing. It's a human term of not being able sense the optical radiation. There's no such thing as darkness in the universe. Except maybe in the center of a black hole Who knows what's there anyway..

 

[godnotgod]

If the room is not properly isolated, it would have a similar temperature as outside of the house. So in winter, the room would be cold. The heater creates energy from the electricity it receives from the power lines. While the heater is on, the heat is being transferred into the room's atmosphere. When the heater is off, the energy spreads (because of the bad isolation) towards outside of the house (earth's atmosphere), thus the room becomes cold again.

The question is: Is there a RELATIONSHIP between heat and cold, and if there is, what is the nature of that relationship?

When the room's atmosphere receives more energy, the room's temperature increases. But the room is still the same. The room doesn't receive more stuff. The room's gasses just spin faster.

The question has nothing to do with the room; I am asking if the rise in temperature from cold to hot is a CONTINUUM. That is to say, it is a SINGLE EVENT, correct?

Actually light is electromagnetic radiation. wave particle duality
Whatever we don't know, we'll find out eventually. Science seems to be the best way so far.

That is a matter of your opinion, based upon your indoctrination, but that is besides the point, which is that, when you say that light is photons, or electromagnetic radiation, you are still not telling us what light is exactly, are you? I can continue the inquiry by asking you what electromagnetic radiation is, and you will provide a technical answer, but not one that tells us what the true nature of light actually IS.

Darkness doesn't exist as a thing. It's a human term of not being able sense the optical radiation. There's no such thing as darkness in the universe. Except maybe in the center of a black hole Who knows what's there anyway..

It is not a 'thing', but it IS a state, or condition. When we talk about light and dark as opposite values, we are referring to visible light. Of course there are wavelengths beyond our ability to detect them, just as there are sounds beyond human hearing capabilities.

 

[Looncall]

<snip>

That is a matter of your opinion, based upon your indoctrination, but that is besides the point, which is that, when you say that light is photons, or electromagnetic radiation, you are still not telling us what light is exactly, are you? I can continue the inquiry by asking you what electromagnetic radiation is, and you will provide a technical answer, but not one that tells us what the true nature of light actually IS.

Nonsense. How is the is supposed "true nature" different from the technical answer? Once you know that light is composed of photons, and you have an account of what a photon is, there is nothing more to be said.

You are trying to shoehorn some superstitious further notion into the case. I suppose this is a desperate echo of the discredited idea of essences.

 

[godnotgod]

<snip>



Nonsense. How is the is supposed "true nature" different from the technical answer? Once you know that light is composed of photons, and you have an account of what a photon is, there is nothing more to be said.

You are trying to shoehorn some superstitious further notion into the case. I suppose this is a desperate echo of the discredited idea of essences.

Taking apart a piano does not tell us what music is.

If you think you know what light actually is, tell me what it's nature is. If all you are going to say is that it is composed of photons which are electromagnetic energy and blah blah blah, don't bother, ok?

In fact, let me just cut to the heart of the matter, and ask you what the nature of the phenomenal world is. One size fits all.

 

[confused453]

godnotgod, what is the nature of your ultimate reality? And why should it exist?

What is the nature of existence itself?

 

[Thief]

Yes, you were preaching, so cut it out.

It's not that you owe me an answer; it's that you don't know the answer to the question, otherwise what is your problem? For several pages now, you keep beating around the bush.

No, your 'answer' did not address the question, so it is YOU who do not understand. The answer you gave did not tell me how learning qualifies a child for entry into Paradise. What does learning have to do with it?

You are here to learn all that you can....then you die....
And go back to God.

Stubborn attitudes often fail to rise from the dust.
Even when they do, the angels cut it down.

Heaven is a place of peace.... and play.

 

[Anatta]

How do gods help with life?

 

[Thief]

How do gods help with life?

I suspect there is very little intervention....however...

The Garden Event would be one such occasion.
The Flood would be another.
So too, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Some portion would be promoted...another destroyed.

I don't discount mass extinctions.
If not for the extinction of large dinosaurs, the development of smaller creatures would not have taken place.
Imagine trying to earn your keep in the field....
as large plant eaters roam at will.

 

[Anatta]

I suspect there is very little intervention....however...

The Garden Event would be one such occasion.
The Flood would be another.
So too, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Some portion would be promoted...another destroyed.

I don't discount mass extinctions.
If not for the extinction of large dinosaurs, the development of smaller creatures would not have taken place.
Imagine trying to earn your keep in the field....
as large plant eaters roam at will.

This sounds an awful lot like an attempt to use the supernatural to explain natural events. I see your god, and raise you two flying spaghetti monsters...

 

[confused453]

It is not a 'thing', but it IS a state, or condition. When we talk about light and dark as opposite values, we are referring to visible light. Of course there are wavelengths beyond our ability to detect them, just as there are sounds beyond human hearing capabilities.

Dark is a state of human/animal mind, of not sensing optical radiation. There's no actual state of dark in the universe. There's just space. Light particles travel through space, sound waves travel through gas.