The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

And why don't they? What data and facts have you ever analyzed which can show that this is true? From whence did you get this idea in the first place?

A man's hair is red; he was brought up in such and such town, and went to such and such school; he has a degree in engineering and works at ABC Company. He has a wife and kids and drive a Subaru. He is American; he likes football, pizza, and movies, etc., etc.

All of these are facts about the man. Do these facts represent the man's true nature?

Where did I get this idea from? What did your face look like before your mother was born?


I certainly can.

You are definitely real, for example, because if I were imagining you I would certainly NOT be making you to be someone who is wasting my time, asking me self-evident questions about Time

How do you know you are not speaking to an illusion? That godnotgod does not really exist perse. That there is no one who is asking you questions; there is only the asking of questions, without a questioner.

 

[godnotgod]

It is self-evident.

It's really very simple. Time is necessary for any change of state. I have already explained. If you are perceiving anything, Time is already passing for you.

You might as well ask me to verify how I can know if you are alive while you are thinking. if you're not alive you aren't thinking. If you are thinking, you're alive.

Do you agree that Time is the measurement of the duration of an event?

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you know you are not speaking to an illusion? That godnotgod does not really exist perse. That there is no one who is asking you questions; there is only the asking of questions, without a questioner.

Something must generate the question, since the question is there.

 

[godnotgod]

Something must generate the question, since the question is there.

So what is that 'something' you think is generating questions?

 

[PolyHedral]

All events occur only in the present moment. They cannot occur in the past or the future as both are always non-existent. [/color]

The math (which is infallible) does not tell us that. In fact, the math tells us that you can partially swap past and future into each other, if you do it carefully. Additionally, at the edge of black holes, you can swap time and space.

You can't show me one because Quantum Physics has shown that electrons cannot be pinned down, as they behave as both particles and waves. On top of that, we now know that atoms are mostly empty space. These facts add up to a situation where we no longer know what is 'real'...

Electrons (along with the other fundamental objects) are real. They just aren't sensible.

On a larger scale, cutting edge theories about the origins of the universe now say that it came out of nothing, more magic and illusion.

Oh, can I have a link? I've never seen any theory say we came from nothing, only that we come from strange things that laymen can't understand.

But beyond this, we can say that, fundamentally, not one single thing exists, as all 'things' are completely interconnected with everything else, so 'thing' cannot be isolated and defined, except arbitrarily and conceptually. To define one single thing is to define the entire universe, and vice versa.

But then the universe is a thing, which exists by definition.

But if we understand that what we think of as real 'things' are only an illusion, and that the changeless, undivided, and infinite background against which they are seen and from which they are being projected is what reality actually is, then the phenomenal world that is really illusion might begin to 'make sense'. Clearly, Quantum Physics is showing us that what we thought of as 'reality' in the classic sense is no longer the case.

I'd agree with you that mathematics is the foundation of reality....
Oh, wait, that's not what you mean? Then be more specific.

So what is that 'something' you think is generating questions?

It is probably another human being somewhere on the planet. There's also a large number of things it could be but probably isn't. However there must be something, since the question is there.

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR] But then the universe is a thing, which exists by definition.

The uni-verse, by definition, is One, and is Every-thing, so no one can stand outside of it and point to it as a 'thing'. It has no 'other' to compare to.

Just because something is apparent does not mean it exists, let alone that it is real. A mirage is an appearance that only seems real. I am suggesting that the universe is also an appearance, albeit on another level, that only seems real. Quantum Physics has now turned classical logic and physics upside down in this regard.

 

[PolyHedral]

The uni-verse, by definition, is One, and is Every-thing, so no one can stand outside of it and point to it as a 'thing'. It has no 'other' to compare to.

Just because something is apparent does not mean it exists, let alone that it is real. A mirage is an appearance that only seems real. I am suggesting that the universe is also an appearance, albeit on another level, that only seems real. Quantum Physics has now turned classical logic and physics upside down in this regard.

Logic still holds true, and you're partially right. However, the interactions of the fundamental objects (there's 4-20 of them, depending on exactly how you classify them) are absolutely real, and give rise of the rest of the universe.

And of course the universe has an other to compare to. It can be compared to everything which does not exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Logic still holds true, and you're partially right. However, the interactions of the fundamental objects (there's 4-20 of them, depending on exactly how you classify them) are absolutely real, and give rise of the rest of the universe.

Yes, but what is the source of the 'fundamental objects'?

And of course the universe has an other to compare to. It can be compared to everything which does not exist.

What does not exist is purely conjectural and conceptual. The uni-verse, the One that is All, includes empty space. Since it is the All, there is nothing to compare it to. Anything you can compare it to is also part of the universe, which is Absolute.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, but what is the source of the 'fundamental objects'?

Usually, the answer to that is "geometry. "

What does not exist is purely conjectural and conceptual.

Which can still be compared to reality.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

A man's hair is red; he was brought up in such and such town, and went to such and such school; he has a degree in engineering and works at ABC Company. He has a wife and kids and drive a Subaru. He is American; he likes football, pizza, and movies, etc., etc.

All of these are facts about the man. Do these facts represent the man's true nature?

They do tell some of it. Unless you are making some mystical arbitrary new definition of 'true nature'. It's facetious to begin with physical and practical characteristics and then demand esoteric details. In all honesty I could make suppositions about whatever his 'true' nature is based on this limited info, within a range, if your 'true nature' concept were actually defined..

Where did I get this idea from? What did your face look like before your mother was born?

*sigh* Why do you ask non-useful questions? I had no face before i was born as I had no face.

How do you know you are not speaking to an illusion? That godnotgod does not really exist per se. That there is no one who is asking you questions; there is only the asking of questions, without a questioner.

It's a ridiculous idea. As I said, if it were me deluding myself, you'd be smarter. If it's an illusion not from within my self, then it's from someone else, and since the idea of your forum avatar is predicated on there being someone behind it.. it is self fulfilling. There are no questions without a questioner. Such an idea is meaningless.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Do you agree that Time is the measurement of the duration of an event?

There are several definitions and that is one of them, yes. Time is the dimension by which we measure duration.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you agree that Time is the measurement of the duration of an event?

So are you saying that duration is real? That duration is not a figment of the imagination?

 

[godnotgod]

Usually, the answer to that is "geometry. "

....which tells us nothing, except about its description. Descriptions are not what they describe.

Which can still be compared to reality.

Concepts are formed because we do not know what reality actually is, so how can they be compared to something we still do not understand the nature of? I will say that a conceptual model can lead us to knowledge (ie; facts, data, etc) about reality, but not to an understanding about it. We know its mechanistic workings, but these are just the outward signs.

If you subscribe to the idea that the universe and all it contains, including us, are nothing more than machines, then you are seeing the universe as an artifact, a made 'thing', that is subject to creation and destruction.

But if you understand your true nature as not subject to birth and death, as a living and intelligent entity that emerges from a living and intelligent universe, then all of the scientific 'explanations' will not do. Another kind of knowledge is needed, and this is found in Higher Consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

They do tell some of it. Unless you are making some mystical arbitrary new definition of 'true nature'. It's facetious to begin with physical and practical characteristics and then demand esoteric details. In all honesty I could make suppositions about whatever his 'true' nature is based on this limited info, within a range, if your 'true nature' concept were actually defined..

In the examples I gave, some attributes are genetic, while others are due to social indoctrination. Even the preference for pizza, for example, can be a cultural idea. The point is that our true nature is beyond these attributes. It is universal, and applies to all humans. The easiest way to allude to it's universality is to say that the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. It is there prior to the machinations of nature and the genes, and prior to socialization, so in this respect, our genetic heredity and socialized attributes are not our original natures. These temporal acquired characteristics include our ideas about reality, like Time, Space, and Causation, which are learned. When we are in touch with our true natures, we can then see that reality is Timeless, Causeless, and Undivided, because our true nature is also Timeless, Causeless, and Undivided.

[/COLOR]
*sigh* Why do you ask non-useful questions? I had no face before i was born as I had no face.

Sorry for the confusion. 'No face' is a metaphor for not being immersed in the state of Identification; that is to say, not taking the socialized individual we call "I" as being real. So the question has to do with who or what you are prior to your entering into the state of Identification. To ask what you looked like before your mother was born is to ask what you are before being socially indoctrinated into the character called "I".

It's a ridiculous idea. As I said, if it were me deluding myself, you'd be smarter. If it's an illusion not from within my self, then it's from someone else, and since the idea of your forum avatar is predicated on there being someone behind it.. it is self fulfilling. There are no questions without a questioner. Such an idea is meaningless.

Show me the questioner, please.

 

[PolyHedral]

....which tells us nothing, except about its description. Descriptions are not what they describe.

They are in maths.

Concepts are formed because we do not know what reality actually is, so how can they be compared to something we still do not understand the nature of?

Trivially. Models can be tested against evidence. Perhaps this didn't occur to you, since there seems to be a substantial lack of it in your own thought process.

If you subscribe to the idea that the universe and all it contains, including us, are nothing more than machines, then you are seeing the universe as an artifact, a made 'thing', that is subject to creation and destruction.

That's a non-sequitor. Things don't necessarily have to die.

 

[godnotgod]

So are you saying that duration is real? That duration is not a figment of the imagination?

Duration as time is not real. What we call duration and time are actually velocity and speed, PERCEIVED as duration and time. See here:

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

 

[godnotgod]

They are in maths.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the universe is an illusion, but of a higher order than those we experience on this earthly existence. It is an illusion that you cannot put your hand through, so to speak; that has 'solidity' and 'feel', so we say it is 'real'. Not only that, but we can measure its solidity via time, length, duration, speed, velocity, size, etc. via of mathematics, and come to the conclusion that our pure math is an indication of reality itself, when, in actuality, everything our math is measuring is illusory!

Enter Quantum Physics, which is now saying that there is no real solidity, no time, no way of measuring position, etc.

Consider the following statement:

"Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute (the rope) is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe (the snake). So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

The Equations of Maya

Trivially. Models can be tested against evidence. Perhaps this didn't occur to you, since there seems to be a substantial lack of it in your own thought process.



Of course models can be tested against evidence. That's the scientific method. But all you get is knowledge, data, and facts. You do not get a true understanding of the nature of reality. You get an 'understanding' about how something works; ie, its mechanics. We can create a model of how photosynthesis in a blade of grass works and then test it and get accurate data by repeating the experiment, etc, but none of that tells us what a blade of grass actually IS.

That's a non-sequitor. Things don't necessarily have to die.

A beginning implies an end. They go hand in hand.

 

[godnotgod]

There are several definitions and that is one of them, yes. Time is the dimension by which we measure duration.

Time as a dimension is still only a concept, one which is now being challenged, along with the idea that duration represents time. See here:

"Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

 

[godnotgod]

They are in maths.
Models can be tested against evidence. Perhaps this didn't occur to you, since there seems to be a substantial lack of it in your own thought process.

see here: "Spacetime has No Time Dimension" -- New Theory Claims that Time is Not the 4th Dimension

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In the examples I gave, some attributes are genetic, while others are due to social indoctrination. Even the preference for pizza, for example, can be a cultural idea. The point is that our true nature is beyond these attributes. It is universal, and applies to all humans. The easiest way to allude to it's universality is to say that the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. It is there prior to the machinations of nature and the genes, and prior to socialization, so in this respect, our genetic heredity and socialized attributes are not our original natures. These temporal acquired characteristics include our ideas about reality, like Time, Space, and Causation, which are learned. When we are in touch with our true natures, we can then see that reality is Timeless, Causeless, and Undivided, because our true nature is also Timeless, Causeless, and Undivided.

Actualy salinity levels are different even in th same body of water.
Your prosy philosophy is tenuous at best, I am afraid. You are positing some beautiful unity with all or some other Eastern concept that has no useful [certainly to me] application nor representation. Dream a bout how beautiful Life is if it pleases you, but in the end your nasal cavity will be filled with munching worms just like all the rest of us. Perhaps that is the universal true nature of Man you are seeking.

Our own true natures are anything but timeless, causeless and undivided. And I am already in touch with my true nature. Some people seem to think they aren't with their own; that is not my burden. Thus it is easily demonstrated that we are not one. We thoroughly disagree on our own natures, and such cannot be misconstrued as we being one. You are still seeking something. I am content existing as a changing creature who eventually faces death. My own true nature has an essential basis unique to myself, which the world will absolutely lack when I am gone. And, it will be worse off for losing me, but, since it has never shown an inkling of gratitude, well, it gets what it deserves.

Sorry for the confusion. 'No face' is a metaphor for not being immersed in the state of Identification; that is to say, not taking the socialized individual we call "I" as being real. So the question has to do with who or what you are prior to your entering into the state of Identification. To ask what you looked like before your mother was born is to ask what you are before being socially indoctrinated into the character called "I".

Oh. well, interestingly enough with this clarification my statement remains identical and true. Without a physical structure for my identity to coalesce in, I still had no self-identifying 'face'.

Show me the questioner, please.

You're right there. Show me the Adversary.





I'm right here.

This isn't rocket science. Asking facetious questions isn't making you seem profound. Demanding I show you you to yourself is just an empty exercise that you might imagine proves a point. It doesn't. You are the questioner. Look at your hands; there's my true answer. Your thoughts come from you and are transmitted to me via a public medium that works on electricity and later light waves. That's it. Seriously, this is beginning to smack of precociousness; it seems deliberately obtuse and it's rather tiring to try and place meaning on what you are trying to say.