The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

It's hard to make someone understand something when you don't understand what they are responding with. I'm not saying that happened here. I haven't read you're guys whole conversation. But from personal experience, it can be hard at times to understand Thief, so don't start accusing him as the "loser" of this discussion. It seems you are implying that, godnotgod.

I have never approached this discussion in those terms. What I AM saying, and making no bones about it, is that Thief simply does'nt understand the beliefs he presents as his own. Whenever we get close to finding out, he just gets evasive and remains superficial. I understand WHY he believes as he does, and that is what I have been probing about all this time: to get him to see his own position, and where his thinking comes from.

In short, Thief is simply one more believer indoctrinated into his system of dogmatic beliefs as a means of securing relief from anxiety in a world filled with uncertainty and change. I could see that going in, and I feel not one iota of pity for him, especially after some of the things I have pointed out to him about his beliefs and how they function. He knows.

Winning or losing are up to him.

In the spiritual world, they are the same.

In the world of religion, they are not.

"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful"
Tao te Ching

 

[godnotgod]

This is not what I had intended for this thread.

I think you should forget such intentions, and simply accept it as it has turned out, warts and all.

Just connect all the warts, and I think you'll find everything to still be intact and on track.

Have faith.

 

[cottage]

Nay, it is what YOU are reading INTO my posts!

Your persistence and insistence in YOUR belief has now become dogma.

Forgive me but it is faintly light-minded to say being sceptical of an unproven and unprovable assertion is dogma. And anyway I’m here for the arguments and a bit of sport, not to propose or impose any dogma. My view, based solely upon the arguments and statements that you’ve made, that you claim to see ‘true reality’, is that the claim is a fiction (and one that has a probable emotional content or dependence). And, with sole exception of analytical or tautological truths, I don’t propose that anything I say is an incontrovertible truth or indubitable in the way that you claim for your beliefs. The Universe as a Whole and the Eternity of the World are metaphysical hypotheses that pre-date even the Abrahamic God, and might even be true, and therefore what I believe to be the case isn’t invoked with certainty, while yours by its very definition is a doctrinal belief that denies any possibility that it might be false or mistaken. And that, by any standard, is a perfect example of dogmatism (and therefore no different in that respect to any other religious faith).

Once again, with feeling:[/COLOR]

A finger pointing to the moon is not a religious doctrine that you can take a position for or against, as there is nothing for your grasping mind to grasp. The same goes for 'pondfrogleapsplash'.[/COLOR]

The doctrine is your Zen metaphysic, but as a belief which you hold to not as a hypothesis but as a faith that ‘true reality’ is something that can be experienced.

Once again: there is no object of seeing; seeing itself is the experience.

Either you see things as they are, or you do not.

Do you see things as they are, and if not, why is that, cottage?[/COLOR]

Please explain for us what you mean by ‘seeing things as they are?’ By your own argument things ‘are’. I’m asking you, quite reasonably, what they ‘are’? Now you’ve said there is no object of seeing, but if that is the case how is it you can assert that the world is not composed of parts? For if it is by ‘seeing’ that you are arguing for the unity of the world (as well as a whole raft of other claims) then that is self-evidently the object of your argument, which is for the sceptics to see for themselves that the world is indivisible. Also, you say there is no see-er and yet you exhort people to ‘go see for themselves’. So why are you asking people to go and see if there are no people and nothing to see? So in different words, given the argument you are making who is it you think you are addressing?

And that, sir, is merely your belief, based on..what? The flawed Western system of logic, analysis, and reason?[/COLOR]

If it is merely my belief that your arguments are nothing more than a mystical/religious exhortation then it is one you should be able to dispel quite easily, but you’ve shown that you’re unable to do that.
And when you make claims such as the ‘Western system of logic, analysis and reason are flawed’ there is an entirely reasonable expectation that you have an argument to support that claim, rather than just making airy statements or empty assertions.

You're just twisting the argument to fit your teeth.

The way you know you have been dreaming is to awaken. To be awake, is to know. There is no belief or doctrine involved in being awake.

So explain for us how you know you are awake? You are simply making an assumption that is exactly of a piece with the one that you direct at your critics, but reversed in this case. How do you know everything isn’t an illusion, including the belief that you’ve awoken from a dream? The question is especially pertinent when you’ve previously stated contradictorily that there is no knowledge (below):

“pondfrog-leapsplash

no mind
no not-mind
no thought
no thinker
no self
no belief
no doctrine
no fact
*no knowledge
no you
no I
only pondfrog-leapsplash

There. Your question is now answered.”

The asterisk and the enlarged and bold type are all yours, incidentally!

 

[cottage]

And at the end of our days ours thoughts and feelings....our beliefs...
will be all the remains of us.

Even less if you don't believe in yourself.

Dust you are........

Actually, no, I am not suggesting the entire thread is pointless. In my view it is important that we challenge supernatural claims and metaphysical beliefs held from faith alone when they are stated as if they were true.

Human vanity finds it difficult to accept that we are just one small part in the overall scheme of things and we seek consolation in supernatural beliefs. There does appear to be human need for such beliefs, and if it helps people to feel better about themselves and the world in general then why not, as long those beliefs are not imposed on those who don’t share the religious views. I am particularly suspicious of religion in public life, in the case of those who hold public office or teach our children. However, I’m not anti-religion and it is okay when kept out of the arena of public life and among (adult) fellow-believers - or discussion forums such as this.

 

[cottage]

My point is, simply, that what our ordinary mind tells us is reality, is not.

You may think you 'understand', but it still may mean nothing until you see beyond your ordinary, conditioned mind.

What most people call 'reality' is nothing more than a conditioned view. Because the conditioned view does not match what reality actually is, whenever someone points to true reality, it appears as nonsense to the conditioned mind, which expects to get answers that fit its preconditioned view. Therefore the answers from true reality appear paradoxical to the rational mind.
*****

"[A mystical view such as] Zen is paradoxical because life is paradoxical and Zen is a simple mirror-reflection of life. Zen is not a philosophy. Philosophies are never paradoxical, philosophies are very logical -- because philosophies are mind-constructions. Man makes them. They are manufactured by man. They are manmade, tailored, logically arranged, comfortably arranged so that you can believe in them. All those parts which go against the construction have been dropped, rooted out, thrown away. Philosophies don't reflect life as such; they are chosen from life. They are not raw, they are cultured constructions.

Zen is paradoxical because Zen is not a philosophy. Zen is not concerned about what life is,

Zen is concerned that whatsoever is should be reflected as it is.

We create a certain theory and then there is the honeymoon with the theory. For a few years things go perfectly well. Then reality asserts itself. Reality brings up a few things and the theory gets into difficulty because we had excluded a few facts. Those facts will protest, they will sabotage your theory, they will assert themselves. In the eighteenth century science was absolutely certain, now it is certain no more. Now a new theory has come: the theory of uncertainty. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)

Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant came across this fact in Germany. He said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.


But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong.


All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason.



And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand."


Osho
*****

“Kant said reason is very limited’ is a misleadingly facile and simplistic remark that the writer uses to make a point that suits his argument while thinking it unnecessary to explain to his readers what Kant was actually getting at in the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was an empiricist, although admittedly not in the same vein as Hume or Berkeley, and his target was the rationalist philosophers, such as Leibniz and Descartes, who argued that knowledge is deducible from concepts and first principles (innate a priori knowledge). “…everything which bears the least semblance to an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions. For it is a necessary condition of all knowledge that is to be established upon a prior grounds, that it shall be held to be absolutely necessary; much more in this the case with an attempt to determine pure a priori knowledge, and to furnish the standard – and consequently an example – of all apodictic (philosophical) certitude.”

Kant’s position is broadly the same as Hume’s, that we can’t know anything about the world for certain, be it from a priori truths or experience. He most definitely wasn’t saying that because we can’t reason to certain truths about the world therefore the world is to be known by other means, ie without recourse to reason. He was making no epistemological claims. So, if no experience is true and nothing can be determined by appealing to supposed innate knowledge, where then is this supposed ‘true reality to be found?

 

[Thief]

Actually, no, I am not suggesting the entire thread is pointless. In my view it is important that we challenge supernatural claims and metaphysical beliefs held from faith alone when they are stated as if they were true.

Human vanity finds it difficult to accept that we are just one small part in the overall scheme of things and we seek consolation in supernatural beliefs. There does appear to be human need for such beliefs, and if it helps people to feel better about themselves and the world in general then why not, as long those beliefs are not imposed on those who don’t share the religious views. I am particularly suspicious of religion in public life, in the case of those who hold public office or teach our children. However, I’m not anti-religion and it is okay when kept out of the arena of public life and among (adult) fellow-believers - or discussion forums such as this.

As a discussion in it's current form...it is pointless.
We are suppose to be discussing....God.

It would be best to set religion and dogma aside.
It would also help to drop any redundant rhetoric not focused....on God.

 

[godnotgod]

As a discussion in it's current form...it is pointless.
We are suppose to be discussing....God.

It would be best to set religion and dogma aside.
It would also help to drop any redundant rhetoric not focused....on God.

OK. Let's talk about 'God'.

What is 'God'?

 

[Thief]

OK. Let's talk about 'God'.

What is 'God'?

At this point....start another thread.
I'll be there.

Too many postings here, and any third party would be lost in this nonsense.

 

[godnotgod]

“Kant said reason is very limited’ is a misleadingly facile and simplistic remark that the writer uses to make a point that suits his argument while thinking it unnecessary to explain to his readers what Kant was actually getting at in the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was an empiricist, although admittedly not in the same vein as Hume or Berkeley, and his target was the rationalist philosophers, such as Leibniz and Descartes, who argued that knowledge is deducible from concepts and first principles (innate a priori knowledge). “…everything which bears the least semblance to an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions. For it is a necessary condition of all knowledge that is to be established upon a prior grounds, that it shall be held to be absolutely necessary; much more in this the case with an attempt to determine pure a priori knowledge, and to furnish the standard – and consequently an example – of all apodictic (philosophical) certitude.”

Kant’s position is broadly the same as Hume’s, that we can’t know anything about the world for certain, be it from a priori truths or experience. He most definitely wasn’t saying that because we can’t reason to certain truths about the world therefore the world is to be known by other means, ie without recourse to reason. He was making no epistemological claims. So, if no experience is true and nothing can be determined by appealing to supposed innate knowledge, where then is this supposed ‘true reality to be found?

I don't see any issue with Osho's example of Kant's position in the context of the mystical view [of Zen]. All he is saying is that knowledge based on reason once held as certain, is later shown to be incomplete or untrue. Zen does not have this problem because Zen is not based on reason, and is not a philosophy. It is not a product of reason, but a direct reflection of the true nature of reality itself.

A discussion of Kant's Account/Limits of Reason from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:


"We certainly fall into error if we think reason can know a world beyond the senses. Indeed, Kant insists that such knowledge would corrupt practical reasoning...

For finite beings, reason is not transparently or infallibly given to consciousness (as some rationalist philosophers seemed to think), just as it cannot deliver transcendent truths."

This is clearly a statement about the limits of reason, which is what Kant was attempting to demonstrate. Osho states that 'reason is very limited'.

They are saying the same thing.

Now Zen, in fact, does claim to 'know a world beyond the senses', and it does claim to 'deliver transcendent truths', simply because, in going along with the argument against reason, it does not rely on, nor is it limited by reason. In fact, reason actually is an obstacle and must itself be transcended. Zen short-circuits the rational mind and leaves one only with direct insight into the nature of reality.

No, this is not a belief system; it is direct experience, without any doctrine involved. In Zen, there is no time for doctrine; no time for thought. Zen is immediate and spontaneous.

'pondfrogleapsplash'

 

[godnotgod]

So, if no experience is true and nothing can be determined by appealing to supposed innate knowledge, where then is this supposed ‘true reality to be found?

Are you still thinking of 'true reality' as an object of knowing, and where there exists a knower of the known?

This requires the existence of a self, and true reality to exist somewhere 'out there' as an object.

Now you're talking concepts, and all we have are dancing shadows on the walls of Plato's Cave.

Even the self becomes an object of knowing, and can you see the dilemma therein of all the various selves?

Where there is a concept of a separate self, what follows is the concept of the world as composed of separate 'things'. Both are illusions.

The mind is a self-created principle. All of the problems inherent in seeing things as they are originate from this fact.

 

[godnotgod]

At this point....start another thread.
I'll be there.

Too many postings here, and any third party would be lost in this nonsense.

This thread is just fine as it is.

Why not YOU go start a new thread with the OP stated precisely and exactly the way YOU want it to be.

I'll be there.

Otherwise, Thief: Answer the question:

What is 'God'?

You wanted to focus only on 'God', and here's your opportunity. The floor is all yours. You are the captain. You call the shots.

 

[godnotgod]

.....what I believe to be the case isn’t invoked with certainty, while yours by its very definition is a doctrinal belief that denies any possibility that it might be false or mistaken. And that, by any standard, is a perfect example of dogmatism (and therefore no different in that respect to any other religious faith).

The true nature of reality itself (as compared to beliefs or philosophies about reality) cannot be false or mistaken. You seem to be *****-footing around and playing it safe within the confines of your Reason, whose ultimate position is that, in the end, no one can know what is real with certainty. You seem to be stuck in the world of doubt, which is not a bad thing, actually, but you seem locked into the idea that doubt is the final destination, a position even of some nobility. The idea in Plato's Cave Allegory is that there is a true reality that is beyond the shadow of any doubt. Certitude itself is not dogma. It is only dogma when belief is treated as absolute truth, which, again, is the point both Osho and Kant were essentially making.

The doctrine is your Zen metaphysic, but as a belief which you hold to not as a hypothesis but as a faith that ‘true reality’ is something that can be experienced.

Read again:

"Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"

You keep focusing on the pointing finger, and not to what it points to.

 

[godnotgod]

Human vanity finds it difficult to accept that we are just one small part in the overall scheme of things ...

What???!!! Scheme???!!! There is a PLAN to the Universe? There is a PURPOSE?

Maybe you just meant to say something more akin to 'pattern'. 'Scheme' implies a 'schemer' with intent.

 

[waitasec]

This thread is just fine as it is.

Why not YOU go start a new thread with the OP stated precisely and exactly the way YOU want it to be.

I'll be there.

Otherwise, Thief: Answer the question:

What is 'God'?

You wanted to focus only on 'God', and here's your opportunity. The floor is all yours. You are the captain. You call the shots.

the problem is, if you don't agree with Thief's answer...you're wrong.
as if there is a right or wrong idea of what god is in the first place...

go figure...

 

[Thief]

This thread is just fine as it is.

Why not YOU go start a new thread with the OP stated precisely and exactly the way YOU want it to be.

I'll be there.

Otherwise, Thief: Answer the question:

What is 'God'?

You wanted to focus only on 'God', and here's your opportunity. The floor is all yours. You are the captain. You call the shots.

God as Almighty and Creator will call the shot.
Most likely during that hour of your last breath.

 

[godnotgod]

God as Almighty and Creator will call the shot.
Most likely during that hour of your last breath.

So this 'God' of yours uses your last breath as leverage to get what he wants in a coup de gras?

Sounds like a devil to me.:seesaw:

 

[JustWondering]

God as Almighty and Creator will call the shot.
Most likely during that hour of your last breath.

If there is a god, it seems uninterested in us. Your god seemed very active in the past. At least according to the tales handed down. Where has it been the last 3-4 thousand years? Maybe it gave up on us and left.

 

[Thief]

If there is a god, it seems uninterested in us. Your god seemed very active in the past. At least according to the tales handed down. Where has it been the last 3-4 thousand years? Maybe it gave up on us and left.

On the contrary.
Man is the means to generate unique perspectives.
Each one of us deals with life and living in his own way.

If you can look ahead and consider....
then maybe the angles will ask you to follow.

Of course...persistent nay saying would be a deal breaker.

 

[Maitho]

Hello! This topic is one of the main reasons I decided to join this forum. I find it incredibly entertaining. I did not read all 272 pages of text, so I would just like to share my personal opinion on a few things.

I am of the belief that there is no conceivable way to prove the existence of God, gods, goddesses etc. But I have found that there is no way to prove that one of those beings does not exist. If we cannot prove the existence of sentient life on other planets yet, then how could we ever hope to prove the existence of a much more powerful (in religious texts) being?

Now I feel that there are a few things we can interpret though:

If there is a sentient governing being in the universe, either it has no interest in us as a species (and why should it if it has created every single thing?), or it used to, but now feels that we shouldn't be contacted. Or, I suppose, as we evolved something happened to us to make us in as little contact as possible with a divine being (which scientifically makes little sense as this "spiritual evolution" would be incredibly rapid, but who knows?).
I have come up with one more theory that I really enjoy. That is that there is a body that created the universe and everything in it. It created the "big bang" if you will. But it is not concious. I liken it to a star. (I don't know too much about science specifics so bear with me). A giant mass of energy that does what it's supposed to do. In this case, I imagine that as a star gives off energy and light and such, this "god" creates universes every so often.
If God, as some speculate, is eternal, then why would he/she choose to create the universe 14.6 billion years ago? What were they doing up until that point? So as I see it, if the universe was created by a god then it must be something they routinely do.

Another interesting thing to look at is the motivation of a divine being. Looking at the Bible (which I know most, but not too much, about), in the beginning especially you see God portrayed as a very strong vengeful, arguably evil character. Yet the Bible goes on to say how much he cares for us and loves us. This has probably been speculated a lot, but I believe this is do to the fact that when..."God stories" were first being told, the best way to market them was to make him seem like the biggest baddest thing around (as everyone in power long ago was the strongest). As time went on people found other endearing characteristics in leaders, such as compassion and so the story changed.

Though I think it is arrogant for humans to believe that there is nothing greater than themselves in the universe, there is no way to say for sure. The humorous thing to me though, is that humans who believe that there is something greater than themselves are generally more arrogant than those who don't.

 

[Thief]

Hello! This topic is one of the main reasons I decided to join this forum. I find it incredibly entertaining. I did not read all 272 pages of text, so I would just like to share my personal opinion on a few things.

I am of the belief that there is no conceivable way to prove the existence of God, gods, goddesses etc. But I have found that there is no way to prove that one of those beings does not exist. If we cannot prove the existence of sentient life on other planets yet, then how could we ever hope to prove the existence of a much more powerful (in religious texts) being?

Now I feel that there are a few things we can interpret though:

If there is a sentient governing being in the universe, either it has no interest in us as a species (and why should it if it has created every single thing?), or it used to, but now feels that we shouldn't be contacted. Or, I suppose, as we evolved something happened to us to make us in as little contact as possible with a divine being (which scientifically makes little sense as this "spiritual evolution" would be incredibly rapid, but who knows?).
I have come up with one more theory that I really enjoy. That is that there is a body that created the universe and everything in it. It created the "big bang" if you will. But it is not concious. I liken it to a star. (I don't know too much about science specifics so bear with me). A giant mass of energy that does what it's supposed to do. In this case, I imagine that as a star gives off energy and light and such, this "god" creates universes every so often.
If God, as some speculate, is eternal, then why would he/she choose to create the universe 14.6 billion years ago? What were they doing up until that point? So as I see it, if the universe was created by a god then it must be something they routinely do.

Another interesting thing to look at is the motivation of a divine being. Looking at the Bible (which I know most, but not too much, about), in the beginning especially you see God portrayed as a very strong vengeful, arguably evil character. Yet the Bible goes on to say how much he cares for us and loves us. This has probably been speculated a lot, but I believe this is do to the fact that when..."God stories" were first being told, the best way to market them was to make him seem like the biggest baddest thing around (as everyone in power long ago was the strongest). As time went on people found other endearing characteristics in leaders, such as compassion and so the story changed.

Though I think it is arrogant for humans to believe that there is nothing greater than themselves in the universe, there is no way to say for sure. The humorous thing to me though, is that humans who believe that there is something greater than themselves are generally more arrogant than those who don't.

And do you believe that thought and feeling can exist beyond breath?