The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

*yawn*....manana ser otra dia...:candle:

"One light, though the lamps be many"

"No, I don't think I will kiss you, although you need kissing, badly. That's what's wrong with you. You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how"

 

[Curious George]

well godnotgod, when you come back on please don't take offense, I was quoting gone with the wind in response to your manana sera otra dia saying. You seem well read so I imagine that you know the phrase tomorrow is another day is used in gone with the wind. I thought I would use another quote in response. But, later I thought you might think I was trying to offend.

 

[godnotgod]

well godnotgod, when you come back on please don't take offense, I was quoting gone with the wind in response to your manana sera otra dia saying. You seem well read so I imagine that you know the phrase tomorrow is another day is used in gone with the wind. I thought I would use another quote in response. But, later I thought you might think I was trying to offend.

No offense, I just thought Thief was more in need of kissing than I, LOL. Anyway, I'll log back on this eve. Ciao.

 

[cottage]

We all are enlightened, but only some realize it. I can say for certain that it is absolutely real. Once you have experienced a taste of it, it is in your mind day and night, as this ordinary reality simply cannot compare, at least the way we are conditioned to see it. The key is to try to see that this ordinary world is, in fact, none other than the miraculous itself. For most of us, however, our social indoctrination keeps us unrealized and in the dual state of joy/suffering. The Buddha reached the highest state of development, called Supreme Enlightenment. There are many levels.

I don’t really want to get into personalities here for that’s not what forums are about, but we are very clearly looking at an obsession when you say ‘it is in your mind day and night’, and I think it’s fair to say the assessment is supported by the enormous number of posts, repeating the same thing, and time spent seeking and copying statements and articles from other sources to bolster and reinforce the beliefs. There can be no doubt that your faith has huge emotional importance for you. Now I can’t pretend to be an expert in the psychology of belief-as-faith but I’m aware that in these extreme cases an individual will never, ever, be disabused of the idea, and opposing arguments are countered by the simple expedient of nothing being allowed to count against the stated belief.
But be that as it may there is an old adage that, despite its painfully illogical form, also has a compelling ring of truth: ‘The more that is claimed for a thing, the more impossible it becomes.’ Unfounded claims and assertions, repeated ad infinitum, damage the credibility of the advocate’s argument and have the appearance of blind dogma. Reading between the lines, I believe I can say with confidence that you’ve not experienced this supposed state, and even if you think you had – and you’ve already shown that this is simply unanswerable: you’ve no way of knowing it wasn’t an illusion. Also there is another aspect of your argument that is misleading, or even plain false, and that is where you maintain that due to our worldly experience or ‘social indoctrination’ this conditioning constrains or obstructs the accessibility of other knowledge, information, or whatever else you want to call it. This implies, misleadingly, that knowledge is always subject to the twin strains of analysis and will and that we are productively selective in our understanding. That is not so. In dreams, for example, ideas present themselves to me whether I will them or not, and nor do they beg my understanding and rational acceptance. If in a dream a new mathematical truth came to me, even if it was beyond my comprehension or intellectual capacity, it would for all that be no less true. So what I’m saying here is that if something can be demonstrably true, independent of my willingness to believe it, then my selective or conditioned understanding imposes no necessity upon what is certain. But humans are receptive to all forms of experience and knowledge, and it is only the religionists and mystics that claim certainty without ever being able to show, even to their own satisfaction it would seem, that what is believed from faith is actually true.

 

[Thief]

Well said....
But having accepted the one concept as true many other concepts follow in support.

I have accepted that this life is a learning device times billions.
The tool shows the intent.

We ARE here to be unique and we die that way.
We might well continue in the next life...if we accept it.

Denial is the problem.

I realize your post was basically aimed at someone else....
but you included the religiously minded.
Though I have no religion...I have faith.

Were you also including my posts in your rebuttal?

 

[cottage]

Well said....
But having accepted the one concept as true many other concepts follow in support.

Yes. That may be so, deductively.

I have accepted that this life is a learning device times billions.
The tool shows the intent.

We ARE here to be unique and we die that way.
We might well continue in the next life...if we accept it.

Denial is the problem.

Actually, dogma is the problem!

Everyone has the right to believe anything, but there is a huge difference in believing a thing to be true from faith and making statements and assertions to that effect, which are then just left hanging in the air. And in all cases, theist and mystic, human vanity drives those empty claims.

I realize your post was basically aimed at someone else....
but you included the religiously minded.
Though I have no religion...I have faith.

In this context being ‘religiously minded’ and having faith are the same thing.

Were you also including my posts in your rebuttal?

I wasn’t, specifically, but parts of it would apply if you were claiming certainty for your faith.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

confused453 I assume was assuming the fundamental rules of logic in order to postulate two possibilities. Possibility 1 is that God exists, possibility 2 is that God does not exist.

Actually, logic dictates that this is a false dichotomy, as there are a several other possibilities that are not included.

 

[godnotgod]

I don’t really want to get into personalities here for that’s not what forums are about, but we are very clearly looking at an obsession when you say ‘it is in your mind day and night’, and I think it’s fair to say the assessment is supported by the enormous number of posts, repeating the same thing, and time spent seeking and copying statements and articles from other sources to bolster and reinforce the beliefs. There can be no doubt that your faith has huge emotional importance for you. Now I can’t pretend to be an expert in the psychology of belief-as-faith but I’m aware that in these extreme cases an individual will never, ever, be disabused of the idea, and opposing arguments are countered by the simple expedient of nothing being allowed to count against the stated belief.
But be that as it may there is an old adage that, despite its painfully illogical form, also has a compelling ring of truth: ‘The more that is claimed for a thing, the more impossible it becomes.’ Unfounded claims and assertions, repeated ad infinitum, damage the credibility of the advocate’s argument and have the appearance of blind dogma. Reading between the lines, I believe I can say with confidence that you’ve not experienced this supposed state, and even if you think you had – and you’ve already shown that this is simply unanswerable: you’ve no way of knowing it wasn’t an illusion. Also there is another aspect of your argument that is misleading, or even plain false, and that is where you maintain that due to our worldly experience or ‘social indoctrination’ this conditioning constrains or obstructs the accessibility of other knowledge, information, or whatever else you want to call it. This implies, misleadingly, that knowledge is always subject to the twin strains of analysis and will and that we are productively selective in our understanding. That is not so. In dreams, for example, ideas present themselves to me whether I will them or not, and nor do they beg my understanding and rational acceptance. If in a dream a new mathematical truth came to me, even if it was beyond my comprehension or intellectual capacity, it would for all that be no less true. So what I’m saying here is that if something can be demonstrably true, independent of my willingness to believe it, then my selective or conditioned understanding imposes no necessity upon what is certain. But humans are receptive to all forms of experience and knowledge, and it is only the religionists and mystics that claim certainty without ever being able to show, even to their own satisfaction it would seem, that what is believed from faith is actually true.

'pondfrogleapsplash' is true prior to belief or opinion, and it's direct experience requires no proof. The proof is the experience itself, uncolored, as it were, via preconception or social indoctrination as filters which could render it illusory. The literature is filled with examples of those who have realized sudden enlightenment via of unexpected incidents wherein the mind was completely open. The clatter of a tile; the sound of a pebble striking bamboo; the splash of a frog into a still pond; have in many instances led to the powerful transformative experience of satori.

These experiences are not black and white. Sometimes one only catches a glimpse; other times the experience is more prolonged, but may not be that of Supreme Enlightenment. There are stages/levels and/or brief exposures, while one may still be attached to one's ordinary life. The letting go, or dropping away, of ego can occur over a very long period of time. I do not claim Supreme Enlightenment by any means, but I have had enough of these experiences that my life has been changed by them forever, and by which I see beyond a shadow of a doubt that my former life was one of a conditioned mentality, much of which I have been able to approach in a very different way than before. I am certain that such changes came about, over a period of time, as a direct result of my exposure to Higher Consciousness. But in response to your labeling these experiences as beliefs, I can only say that when they occur, no belief is present. They are pure experiences, without concept or thought, and are unmistakable as to their authentic character. The more dramatic of these can go on for weeks, as the subject can be in a complete state of rapture. The paradoxical thing about these experiences is that they do not seem to have any set pattern or prerequisite. They can happen to anyone at any time. In contrast, one who studies and/or meditates for decades may not make any progress at all. This is what occurred to the Zen nun, Chinono, who struggled for years without result, but whose enlightenment came suddenly, in an instant, as the woven basket she carried water in suddenly burst, releasing not only the water it held, but the reflection of the moon on its surface. The conditions were just right for her experience to complete itself in fullness.

Maybe we'll talk more later, but for now, it just appears to me that you have already set up your barricades to NOT allow you to lend any validity to these experiences, as your rational mind dictates to you. All I can say is for you to empty your mind and hold no preconceived notions about what they are, and go see for yourself. As long as you hold onto your logic, your reason, your analytical mind, you will never see anything, unless, of course, these methods act themselves as a self-destruct device, as the koan does, for example. In other words, the logical mind, to be honest, must indeed be tricked to see its own illogic as it applies to a higher vision.

In short, the spiritual experience simply shows one, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what one thinks one sees as real via the rational mind, is not, although, paradoxically, great doubt is what allows one to see. There are, it seems, two kinds of certainty: one that comes via dogma, and the other via seeing things as they are.

Thank you very much.

'A light contact with a taut wire, and behold, an explosion which shakes the
Earth to its foundations; everything that lies hidden in the spirit bursts forth
like a volcanic eruption or explodes like a clap of thunder.'

'Zen calls that 'to return home'. 'You have found yourself now; from the
very beginning nothing has been hidden from you; it was yourself who shut
your eyes to reality.'

from: The Supreme Doctrine: Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, by Hubert Benoit

Here is a link I think you might find useful:

http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/bzrecap.htm

and here is a link to his book if you decide you need to investigate further: I challenge you to read it and then return here without having undergone some change in your current thinking:

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Psycholog...&qid=1343034081&sr=8-1&keywords=hubert+benoit

there are used copies available for under $6 bucks, and at that price are quite a bargain for a landmark book of this nature.



BTW, is not your scepticism a kind of 'faith'? The key is not to lean in either direction, but simply to see things as they are.

 

[Thief]

I prefer to look around me and consider the possible causes.
The stars above...the earth beneath my feet....
The extreme interaction of chemistry and life.

I say, it is altogether unreasonable to NOT believe in Higher Powers.
I call that Higher Power the Almighty.
In the scheme of superlatives....Someone is top of the line life form.
To do that, He would be Spirit.

There are billions of copies of a learning device on this planet.
That tool signifies the Toolmaker.

That such things will never meet is unreasonable.
We shall meet our Maker....each one of us.

'pondfrogleapsplash'...as it may be.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, logic dictates that this is a false dichotomy, as there are a several other possibilities that are not included.

I am not sure that that logic does, can you please explain?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I am not sure that that logic does, can you please explain?

Yes. There could be multiple Gods; the information you have about God or Gods could be wrong and thus the choice could be misleading or tainted.

These two simply possibilities explode the logic of the earlier statement. And, we should both know it was simply a restatement of Pascal's Wager, which is logically poor, generally speaking.

Do you know how many other religions you are an atheist to?

 

[Thief]

Yes. There could be multiple Gods; the information you have about God or Gods could be wrong and thus the choice could be misleading or tainted.

These two simply possibilities explode the logic of the earlier statement. And, we should both know it was simply a restatement of Pascal's Wager, which is logically poor, generally speaking.

Do you know how many other religions you are an atheist to?

So with your exploding logic....

Did you kill the concept of an Almighty?

Gods greater and lesser...implies an Almighty.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So with your exploding logic....

Did you kill the concept of an Almighty?

Gods greater and lesser...implies an Almighty.

There is no implication of a hierarchy, so, the answer would be 'yes I did' to your question. There is no necessity for an almighty.

Who is the almightiest human on Earth?

It's a loaded question because you need a specific answer to be there.

"Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize, it is also the most irrelevant." - the Architect

 

[Curious George]

Yes. There could be multiple Gods; the information you have about God or Gods could be wrong and thus the choice could be misleading or tainted.

These two simply possibilities explode the logic of the earlier statement. And, we should both know it was simply a restatement of Pascal's Wager, which is logically poor, generally speaking.

Do you know how many other religions you are an atheist to?

I would agree there could be multiple gods, and I agree the information I have about God or gods could be wrong. However, if we were to isolate individually each concept of god then we are left with the to logical choices. I think that you misinterpreted the choice that God does not exist to illogically conclude that to mean that no god exists. for instance we could say that God doesn't exist yet still find that other gods do exist.

 

[Thief]

I would agree there could be multiple gods, and I agree the information I have about God or gods could be wrong. However, if we were to isolate individually each concept of god then we are left with the to logical choices. I think that you misinterpreted the choice that God does not exist to illogically conclude that to mean that no god exists. for instance we could say that God doesn't exist yet still find that other gods do exist.

And THIS would circumvent an Almighty?

 

[Curious George]

Do you know how many other religions you are an atheist to?

No, that would entail me to have knowledge of all religions.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I would agree there could be multiple gods, and I agree the information I have about God or gods could be wrong. However, if we were to isolate individually each concept of god then we are left with the to logical choices. I think that you misinterpreted the choice that God does not exist to illogically conclude that to mean that no god exists. for instance we could say that God doesn't exist yet still find that other gods do exist.

Well, if we are agreeing that the normally held concept of the specific 'God' is illogical and thus not one of the possibilities, then we agree. A logically inconsistent God cannot exist. But in any case making it a 2-part 'either/or' is still inadequate to the question; in order to be logical, all possibilities must be contained within the premise.

 

[Thief]

There is no implication of a hierarchy, so, the answer would be 'yes I did' to your question. There is no necessity for an almighty.

Who is the almightiest human on Earth?

It's a loaded question because you need a specific answer to be there.

"Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize, it is also the most irrelevant." - the Architect

A loaded question indeed...and the muzzle pointed to your discussion.

We have hierarchy in this life.
We shall have such in the next.

If not we each stand into chaos, and are taken by surprise, as quickly as we stand.

Unless of course you've got some inside info.....
the territory, the language , the scheme of things.....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, that would entail me to have knowledge of all religions.

Then this admits that your other statement was incorrect, viz/

However, if we were to isolate individually each concept of god then we are left with the two logical choices.

If you do not know, then the narrowness of 'two choices' is still incorrect.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

A loaded question indeed...and the muzzle pointed to your discussion.

We have hierarchy in this life.
...

Since you cannot answer my simple question, this assertion remains incorrect.

Who is the almightiest human on Earth?

Your characteristics of 'almighty' have no basis.

Your God makes many empty claims of being almighty, but there is no such placement. And since he is also logically inconsistent, it's a non-issue.