The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Quoted by GNG:
And yet, in spite of your claim, the great majority of humankind is in the throes of ignorance and suffering, pursuing worldly goals set by others which turn out to be very harmful indeed.

A claim you have repeatedly been unable to support in any way.

That the world has pursued illusory goals which have resulted in its misery is obvious to anyone who takes even a cursory look. You cannot admit that because you put stock in science, which leads us down the same path in the guise of authority, in exactly the same manner that religion does. Both are grievous errors. Whether the theists or atheists gain both power and the use of technology, they will use it to manipulate and control. Both of them are asleep.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry; ultimate reality is the wavefunction. Conciousness is just a byproduct. Observation and conciousness have nothing to do with one another.

For you to be able to say that requires consciousness to already be in place.

So what are YOU? An unconscious observer?:biglaugh:

...or, in Zen terms, 'an ego dragging around a corpse', LOL

 

[godnotgod]

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but — which is even worse — also any prospects at a better future.

Max Plank

The atheist's exploitation of science to lend credibility to their sterile reductionist view of reality reminds me exactly of Hitler's use of the 'science' of eugenics to justify his extermination of the Jews.

The very thing atheism employs as a means to a better life is the very thing it will use to destroy those same prospects. Without the directing force of Higher Consciousness, it promises to be a most brutal affair, surpassing even that of the Inquisition.

 

[godnotgod]

Psssst....hey Prophet....can you believe? 'consciousness is just a by-product'. Certainly we are doomed with that kind of dumbing-down loose in the world.:sad:

 

[Prophet]

Sorry; ultimate reality is the wavefunction.

This conclusion doesn't even make sense. Can you demonstrate this sentence as anything beyond non-sequitur? I doubt this.

Conciousness is just a byproduct. Observation and conciousness have nothing to do with one another.

Are you certain of this or are you feigning certainty to make your idea stronger than it actually is? How, exactly, would an observation take place without the existence of consciousness?

 

[Prophet]

Psssst....hey Prophet....can you believe? 'consciousness is just a by-product'. Certainly we are doomed with that kind of dumbing-down loose in the world.:sad:

I don't want to call it stupidity, but it is quite ignorant to think this way.

I do not believe we are headed for doom though. Through God, all things are possible, even the redemption of this world.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You continue to arrogantly assume your science is the standard by which all other views are to be judged, or automatically trashed, in your case. Vedanta happens to be thousands of years old, so it is not redefining anything. Too bad you are such a reactionary about foreign words, a condition which closes your mind. Your automatic dismissal of the entire piece demonstrates your ignorant black and white approach. It contains no real wisdom because you contain no real wisdom. You seem to be nothing more than a black and white fact machine, mistaking it as a source of truth.

Please take note that my view is all-inclusive in that it can contain both science and mysticism, while yours is only one-sided, ruled by the ruthless and tight-lipped tyrants of Logic, Reason, Fact, and Analysis, keeping your mind locked onto those dancing cave wall shadows you think represent reality, and where you have come to think that the description of reality is reality itself. The net result is that you end up with nothing more than the skeletal framework of reality, devoid of flesh and blood, with your 've haff investigated der matter und haff conkluded dat' 'reality is nothing more than blah blah blah'...ha ha ha.

It's kind of amusing to hear facts and rational thought listed with such vehemence and angst.

With them I understand that Im not even in the cave.

So, will you ever get around to providing rational proof for any of your assertions?

I am beginning to doubt it. Based on the facts, and analysis, of course.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sure. A typical response from those who are, but you're so far into Desire-Driven Identification that you even pretend you're not pretending! The ultimate trickery.

^^ A typical response from those who know they are wrong

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That the world has pursued illusory goals which have resulted in its misery is obvious to anyone who takes even a cursory look. You cannot admit that because you put stock in science, which leads us down the same path in the guise of authority, in exactly the same manner that religion does. Both are grievous errors. Whether the theists or atheists gain both power and the use of technology, they will use it to manipulate and control. Both of them are asleep.

That some people pursue illusory goals does not equal that all goals are illusory. And some illusions produce more pleasure in the pursuer than if they knew the truth; this is not something which can be easily pinned down, and each certainly does not mean all are identical. It's rather amusing that one of your last screeds called me black-and-white and closed minded, when here you are living off false dichotomies.

But grats that you've found an unsupported way to feel superior to both all theists and atheists *eyeroll*

Wake up, wake up!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't want to call it stupidity, but it is quite ignorant to think this way.
I do not believe we are headed for doom though. Through God, all things are possible, even the redemption of this world.

the world does not need redemption. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[cottage]

You completely ignored what I said, transforming it into something else, though much of what you say here is true. I said:

"For anyone to get a handle on what I am claiming, they need to see it for themselves. It is experiential on a first-hand basis. All I can do is to point my finger to it. What most people do instead of looking to see, is to attack my finger."

...which is the opposite of what you said.

Well, I’m sorry but I thought I’d made it abundantly plain that because nothing in what you’ve said is true, or, at base, any different from any other form of mystical belief, I’m obliged to treat it in the same way. I’m frequently told ‘I can’t make you believe; I can only show you the way’, as well as the very common ‘Open your heart to God’. And of course there is the top cliché: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see.’ Throughout our discussion we’ve seen nothing more than an outline of a metaphysical theory, albeit with evident passion. But it only amounts to prescription and the constant allusion to special knowledge. So despite your conviction I’m afraid there is emptiness in your words. I’m reminded of a TV comedy sketch where the actors portrayed a spoof magazine programme in which the presenters introduced experts who advised the viewers on how to become rich and famous. At the end of the sketch the airhead of a presenter thanked the so-called experts and then turned to camera and said: “So, there we have it! All you have to do is to think of something that everybody wants, that nobody has ever thought of before, and then you can charge lots of money for it.”

You say there is nothing new or unique in the idea of the pointing finger, but there is, in contrast to most religions, which employ a doctrine for you to believe in. To point to some truth is not a doctrine. It is to wordlessly point to reality itself. If you are alert and hold no preconceived ideas in mind, you will see it. If you have baggage or cynicism in the way, you will not.

You are making an unsubstantiated assertion, and you misuse the term ‘truth’. Therefore in that respect your metaphysic is no different to god-belief or the religions.

Certainly this image is one you will find in the literature, but I am not repeating it simply because it is considered authoritative; I am repeating it because I understand what it is saying. Here, there are no ideas 'reflected in other people's words', as you insist. There are no words at all. There is no doctrine. There is only the pointing finger. You paint a picture of accepting what mysticism says on the basis of a supposed superiority. But that is not the case. It insists you go see for yourself. All it does is to illuminate the pathway. Of course no one can explain it! An explained mystery renders it dead, as the source of the mystery is beyond explanation, beyond the rational mind. This is never a matter of mere explanation via of factual knowledge and ordinary evidence that can be 'proved'. You continue to interpret the world through the filter of reason, analysis, logic, and concept, and as long as you do, you will never see the world as it actually is. You keep referring to it as 'the world of facts', when no such world exists perse. To see the world as it is means to bring nothing with you, whether it is some doctrine or concept, or a doctrine that is against doctrine, such as atheism.

My immediate response is to say that you don’t know what it is you claim to know. To say ‘the source of the mystery is beyond explanation is to say it is unintelligible. You speak of ‘seeing the world as it is’ and yet you don’t know what it is!
You say ‘go see for yourself’ (quasi-religious utterance). What am I supposed to see, where am I supposed to see it, and what is the point, if, like you, I don’t know what it is I’ve seen? And how am I to know that what I’ve seen is not just a dream and that I dreamt that I’m dreaming that I know what it is that I can’t explain? And even if I do know what I’ve seen how am I supposed to know that it is true? I’m sorry but the entire thing is an absurd notion.
And the reality is that the factual world exists, and it is only by means of logic that we can know it to be contingent, but by your argument facts may be even be certain since you dismiss the very means by which we know them to be contingent!

 

[cottage]

You are still within the sphere of the relative, in which you consider the Absolute to be the opposite of the Relative. But the Absolute you are thinking of is still only a relative absolute. You might say that some object absolutely exists, but no object does so. In fact, no object originally or fundamentally exists. So in this sense, all things are relative. What is Absolute is that from which the visible world emerges, and to which it returns, and that world is Changeless, Undivided, and Infinite, and has no opposite. It is Absolute.

All you are doing here, in fact all you’ve really done from the very beginning of the discussion, as far as I can see, is to advance a mystic’s version of the argument from contingency. The argument states that if something need not exist but does exist (as in ‘the universe exists is true’) then something must exist that cannot fail to exist in order to account for the fact that something is true of the universe; in other words, there must be something that necessarily exists. And, according to this argument, such a thing must be immutable, un-extended and eternal, which means it cannot be the universe itself. (‘Infinite’ is an impossibility) But for all that, just as with your speculative beliefs, it must acknowledge the universe. So I say again, remove sense data from your argument and you have no argument at all. And it doesn’t matter that one thinks it is real. The entire edifice is built upon a supposition of what is and what is not, as your second sentence explicitly confirms for us. Plus I believe I’ve already said elsewhere that knowledge and experience require a ‘knower’ since it receives or is aware of the experience. So something is ‘seeing’, to use your term. And I’ll leave you to reflect on the evident absurdity if experience is said to be experiencing itself - which is what your argument implies if there are no minds or receptor!

There is only something to transcend in the sense that one thinks it is real. Enlightenment is the experience which shows that it is illusory to begin with. What is transcended is only your concept of what it is.

Consider dreaming (Second Level of Consciousness; 'Sleep with Dreams'). During the dream, you think that the images you see are real; that your experience is real. You must awaken from the dream to realize it's transitory state. Their 'existence' is dependent upon you in your awakened state to return to sleep, but your awakened state is not dependent upon the dream world. There is nothing real in the dream to awaken from because the dream itself is not real to begin with.

When you awaken within the dream in this world, you also realize it's transitory, and therefore, illusory, nature.

In the awakened state (Third Level of Consciousness), you consider the world you live in to be real, but is, in fact, illusory, as seen from the next higher level of conscious awareness, that of Self-Transcendence, which is a true Awakening. What we normally think of as being awake is actually a kind of Waking Sleep, in which we only think ourselves awake, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave firmly believed the shadows cast on the cave walls to represent the true state of reality.

This is all speculation. If we turn the argument around, everything you’ve written here, everything you see, and everything you believe to be the case could be an illusion. And no matter what you say, it is impossible for you to know that you are not dreaming fiction. And I’m not sure I see the point of the constant reference to Plato’s Cave. The prisoners chained at the back of the cave and facing the wall in the analogy might have believed the shadows from the flames to be the real world, but the prisoners, the flames, the shadows, and even Plato himself, are of the same contingent species. Whatever can be stated as existent or real can be stated non-existent or unreal, since no experience can imply a contradiction, and while we are aware that perceptions can deceive us p=p in all possible worlds, including any imagined ones. But as you can never award certitude to any form of experience every form of experience is therefore contingent.

The world we considered to be solid and real is now being shown to be something other than classical logic and science told us it was, thanks to Quantum Physics for one, and now the new cutting edge ideas in astrophysics which are telling us that the universe emerged from nothing.

Ahem! All science, experimental and theoretical, is contingent, that is to say factual. You can’t dismiss science and the contingent world as illusory and then in the next breath expect to call upon it to support your claim to it as being ‘illusory’!

 

[cottage]

"Sticks" and "ponds" and all other "things" are all both inter-related to, and inter-dependent upon everything else. So in reality, there are no individual "things" as such. In addition, all such "things" did not originally exist, nor do they continue to exist forever. They arise and subside. That is the nature of the phenomenal world. Furthermore, all such "things" are in flux, although the flux in some things is so slow it is unnoticed. Because all such "things" are inter-dependent, it is said that they are empty, or devoid of any self-nature. "Stick" and "pond", then, are only concepts existing in the mind as tentative descriptions of reality.

It is noted that you constantly change stance, which demonstrates that your ‘true reality’ cannot stand-alone, independent of the world of facts. The passage in red is a word-perfect description of the contingent world – the world you’ve previously been saying is ‘illusory’. And then you say features of the contingent world are ‘only concepts existing in the mind’! This is the same mind that you’ve previously been saying is illusory!

The difference between the ordinary person and the enlightened is that the ordinary person accepts the dual world as 'real', while the enlightened see into its illusory nature, but at the same time, must still continue to function in a world of clocks, schedules, money, good and evil, etc. It's just that he is awake within the dream-illusion, while the unenlightened are still asleep. The case for 'true reality' (actually, there is nothing to prove), is made not on the basis of rational thought, but rather on the basis of reality itself, rational thought and conventional language merely being the vehicles through which a communication must be made to the unenlightened. In other words, when the enlightened person attempts to communicate what he knows to others, he is using the source that is reality itself to draw upon, but must use conventional language in a paradoxical way so as to awaken the intuitive mind of the listener, as in:

"What did your face look like before your mother was born?"

Sometimes, silence itself is utilized, as when the Buddha simply twirled a flower before the assembly. Everyone was silent. Only Mahakashyapa smiled. Buddha said: "I have the eye treasury of the true teaching, the heart of nirvana, the true form of non-form, and the ineffable gate of dharma. It is a special transmission outside the teaching. I now entrust it to Mahakashyapa."
Appearances are not reality. They are appearances only.
The snake that is actually a rope and thought to be real is an appearance only. It is not real. It never existed to begin with. In my example, there never was a double-world at all. Only the real world ever existed. The veil that was the lenses were never detected to exist. Had they been detected, the illusion they produced may have been discovered.

Again and yet again you use examples from the contingent world to demonstrate the contingency of the world, as if we weren’t already aware of that! It seems that you are not able to articulate anything about the ‘real world’ without reference to the contingent world, upon which your mystical theory is utterly dependent.

Only when the mind is completely stilled is it seen that it is an illusion. As long as it is moving, it is thought to be real. Once seen for what it is, then there is only seeing itself, without an agent of seeing, without an experiencer of the experience; without a knower of the known. There is no one who is enlightened; there is only enlightenment itself. The illusory self that imagines itself a separate ego acting upon the world is extinguished. That is what Nirvana means. While there is consciousness that is communicating, there is no communicator of the message, because the consciousness is non-local. It is universal consciousness. That is the meaning of 'I Am'.

Oh come on! “There is only enlightenment itself” is a piece of unadulterated nonsense! (I’m surprised that you have to call upon the notion of a self, which is a concept that we dispensed with many posts ago.) That you are aware of this is made evident by your own words right at the beginning of the passage: “Only when the mind is completely stilled is it seen that it is an illusion.” So if we have a mind then we have knowledge and a knower. And ‘consciousness’ means ‘of the mind, perception and awareness’. And the term ‘universal’ added to ‘consciousness’ doesn’t provide an escape route, since it still implies that something is being aware or informed. The two things that refuse to go away are knowledge and minds. Take those two things out of your argument and everything remaining amounts to gobbledegook.

 

[godnotgod]

But grats that you've found an unsupported way to feel superior to both all theists and atheists *eyeroll*

You are still attached to the dual world, in this case, 'superiority' vs. 'inferiority'. You see my non-attachment to neither theist nor atheist views as an attempt to feel "superior", but that is through YOUR filter. The fact of the matter is that I attach to neither because they are both extreme views. Attaching to neither allows me to freely see both for what they are, in lieu of plunging into Identification in favor of one or the other.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You are still attached to the dual world, in this case, 'superiority' vs. 'inferiority'. You see my non-attachment to neither theist nor atheist views as an attempt to feel "superior", but that is through YOUR filter. The fact of the matter is that I attach to neither because they are both extreme views. Attaching to neither allows me to freely see both for what they are, in lieu of plunging into Identification in favor of one or the other.

You can claim this all you want, but the use of terms and phrases painting the others as blind, or the intimation you are able to see something others can't, is still a statement of superiority.

In a sense by insisting you are neutral places the onus on them by default, and makes your position superior, by dint of being edgy and independent [ie., neither of teh two default positions are good enough, you've gone your own way to buck the system].

You are attached to the dual world as well, you just don't want to admit it.

And, the ultimate chuckle is, your stance remains unsupported, e'en so

 

[godnotgod]

You are making an unsubstantiated assertion, and you misuse the term ‘truth’. Therefore in that respect your metaphysic is no different to god-belief or the religions.

It is radically different in that I am not telling you that you must believe that what I point to is absolute truth. I am merely pointing and leaving it up to you to freely see for yourself. There is no doctrine in the pointing finger.

My immediate response is to say that you don’t know what it is you claim to know. To say ‘the source of the mystery is beyond explanation is to say it is unintelligible.

Unintelligible in rational terms, yes. That's why it cannot be explained. To explain it is to reduce it to a truly unintelligible form.

You speak of ‘seeing the world as it is’ and yet you don’t know what it is!

What it is is not what our rational mind tells us it is. Quantum Physics has now shown us that beyond a doubt. The nature of the world is that it is illusory. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

You say ‘go see for yourself’ (quasi-religious utterance).

Excuse me, but that phrase has nothing to do with religion. FYI, it's source is Zen, which is not a religion and holds no belief in a deity. Stop being so coy.

What am I supposed to see, where am I supposed to see it, and what is the point, if, like you, I don’t know what it is I’ve seen? And how am I to know that what I’ve seen is not just a dream and that I dreamt that I’m dreaming that I know what it is that I can’t explain? And even if I do know what I’ve seen how am I supposed to know that it is true? I’m sorry but the entire thing is an absurd notion.

Of course it's absurd because YOU'RE being absurd! You want pre-conditions and assurance and all the rest. Stop making such a fuss. Just go see. Nothing more; nothing less. Drop your baggage and go with no idea in mind. You probably have nurtured the chatter of your thinking mind so much for so many years that it is virtually impossible for you to do so without some practice, however. You probably don't spend much time in the silent world at all in order to give your poor mind a chance to see!

And the reality is that the factual world exists, and it is only by means of logic that we can know it to be contingent, but by your argument facts may be even be certain since you dismiss the very means by which we know them to be contingent!

Where there is no thought, there are no facts, but the world is still there. Therefore, the nature of the world is not factual perse, just as it is not material perse.

 

[godnotgod]

You can claim this all you want, but the use of terms and phrases painting the others as blind, or the intimation you are able to see something others can't, is still a statement of superiority.

Well, you're just plain wrong. I never claimed to see something others can't. On the contrary, I claimed that, while I may see something they don't, they are perfectly capable of also being able to see it. It's simply that they choose to ignore what they see in favor of what they have been conditioned to see. They would rather put stock in what is considered authoritative and popular, and that has been the lot of most of mankind for centuries. It is the safe position to take, one that makes you acceptable by your peers, and avoids your being the object of criticism, in addition to the fact that you don't have to use critical thinking much.

It's not a matter of superiority, which is the way YOU see it, but just a matter of the way things are. It is YOU, I am afraid, who are still attached to the idea of superiority/inferiority as matters of importance.

You find no valid way to discredit me, so you resort to ad hominem attacks as your last resort.

Failed. Report to the stockades as scheduled but leave baggage behind.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, you're just plain wrong. I never claimed to see something others can't.

On the contrary, I claimed that, while I may see something they don't, they are perfectly capable of also being able to see it. It's simply that they choose to ignore what they see in favor of what they have been conditioned to see. They would rather put stock in what is considered authoritative and popular, and that has been the lot of most of mankind for centuries.

This amounts to exactly the same thing.

It's not a matter of superiority, which is the way YOU see it, but just a matter of the way things are. It is YOU, I am afraid, who are still attached to the idea of superiority/inferiority as matters of importance.

Why would you be afraid of that? You phrase it as if I would surrender such a view.
I would not. It's the nature of reality.

You find no valid way to discredit me, so you resort to ad hominem attacks as your last resort.
.

Well, I am sure I will 'find no way' in that you'll never concede to them, but I have found many ways, thusfar; your failure to admit your own errors is not my cross to bear, so to speak. Your choice to ignore them is merely your desire to put stock in what is neutral and safe. If you ignore facts, and ignore the points of others, you can never be wrong, can you? "It is the safe position to take, one that makes you acceptable by your peers, and avoids your being the object of criticism, in addition to the fact that you don't have to use critical thinking much" sounds very familiar.

Poor fellow.

 

[Vultar]

I never claimed to see something others can't.

I have...

_____________________

If I wanted followers, I would have joined Twitter

 

[cottage]

It is radically different in that I am not telling you that you must believe that what I point to is absolute truth. I am merely pointing and leaving it up to you to freely see for yourself. There is no doctrine in the pointing finger.

With respect you are inviting folk to search for an asserted truth that is cloaked in the mystique of obliqueness. The defence here is that “I’m merely the messenger and if folk refuse to open their eyes then that is a matter for them.” I would like a crisp £50 note for every time I’ve heard that sort of response on religious forums and websites. But you, yourself, don’t know where you are pointing, other than to a belief that something is or might be the case.

Unintelligible in rational terms, yes. That's why it cannot be explained. To explain it is to reduce it to a truly unintelligible form.

The one I remember hearing from theists is: “We don’t have the language framework to explain the experience.” (With apologies to Chunty, an old adversary) And I say to you as I said to Chunty: if a thing is unintelligible then it cannot be knowledge, and if it isn’t knowledge then it isn’t true. Simple as that!

What it is is not what our rational mind tells us it is. Quantum Physics has now shown us that beyond a doubt. The nature of the world is that it is illusory. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

I’m bemused to read that you are saying science informs us that science is illusory, and that your doubtful mind is indubitable in this particular instance!

Excuse me, but that phrase has nothing to do with religion. FYI, it's source is Zen, which is not a religion and holds no belief in a deity. Stop being so coy.

‘Go see for yourself’ is a quasi-religious term, since you cannot say what it is I’m supposed to see or where I’m supposed to see it. It is no different from: “You must believe in order to understand and not understand in order to believe”, "Seek and ye shall find", or any of the other numerous exhortations I’ve heard on religious forums. It is the presumed special knowledge that makes it so, rather than the particular form of words.

Of course it's absurd because YOU'RE being absurd! You want pre-conditions and assurance and all the rest. Stop making such a fuss. Just go see. Nothing more; nothing less. Drop your baggage and go with no idea in mind. You probably have nurtured the chatter of your thinking mind so much for so many years that it is virtually impossible for you to do so without some practice, however. You probably don't spend much time in the silent world at all in order to give your poor mind a chance to see!

Forgive me, but this is all gibberish. Your argument is entirely prescriptive, and that is why my argument is simply to say that you don’t know what it is you claim to know, which is confirmed by your every response. You reject thinking and minds as a way of seeing things but then contradict yourself to say my non-existent mind isn’t being given the chance to see things!

Where there is no thought, there are no facts, but the world is still there. Therefore, the nature of the world is not factual perse, just as it is not material perse.

Both of those statements we can dismiss as an unjustified and unjustifiable assertions. For it is by the same means that we know the factual world to be contingent that we can state there is no necessary world. But if you deny logic then you cannot say ‘there are no facts.’