The Debate of God.

[cottage]

Well then, how else can you know that the world is contingent, if not against that which is non-contingent?

You’re asking the question while at the same time begging the question. Clearly we don’t have to obtain prior knowledge of thing that is unchanging and undivided in order to understand change and division. The world is understood to be contingent because no experience is demonstrably true. The universe doesn’t have to exist, and might not exist, therefore you cannot use the universe to argue to ‘true reality’ or the ‘Absolute.’ Your argument should be: The ‘Absolute’, therefore the universe. Instead you are forced to say: The universe, therefore the ‘Absolute’. And that is because your argument begins and ends in the universe. No universe; no argument.

Might I suggest to you that the non-contingent is passive and one in which you are totally immersed, and that is the reason you are unaware of its presence, as a fish is unaware of the sea it is totally immersed in. Both you and the fish are preoccupied with focusing on what is in the contingent world, but even this preoccupation with phenomena is possible via of the passive background.

And that is all it amounts to…a 'suggestion'. It’s an unproven and unprovable hypothesis, an absurdity even, where the advocate, as contingent being, hopes to demonstrate experience of necessary being.

 

[Dan4reason]

Well then, how else can you know that the world is contingent, if not against that which is non-contingent? Might I suggest to you that the non-contingent is passive and one in which you are totally immersed, and that is the reason you are unaware of its presence, as a fish is unaware of the sea it is totally immersed in. Both you and the fish are preoccupied with focusing on what is in the contingent world, but even this preoccupation with phenomena is possible via of the passive background.

How do I know that the apple I am eating right now is not perfect if I have not eaten the perfect apple?

 

[Tiberius]

I wonder what kind of apple the perfect apple is. Is it a granny smith?

 

[nnmartin]

I usually prefer a toffee apple

 

[idav]

How do I know that the apple I am eating right now is not perfect if I have not eaten the perfect apple?

A perfect apple would have to act like an apple or I'd be suspicious.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, an apple needs a certain amount of sweetness. Not sweet enough and it isn't perfect. But then, TOO sweet, and it also is imperfect. So what is the correct level of sweetness?

 

[godnotgod]

Clearly we don’t have to obtain prior knowledge of thing that is unchanging and undivided in order to understand change and division. The world is understood to be contingent because no experience is demonstrably true.

Prior knowledge is not obtained. That is my point. It is always present, as the sea was present even before the fish was born into it.

Change and division are relative terms. They are inextricably tied to their opposites.

If no [personal] experience is demonstrably true, that is understood simply because there is one that is true, and that is the experience of true reality, which is understood via a universal view. Again, you are still operating within the sphere of relative opposites, wherein you wish to posit one argument and eliminate its opposite. You cannot, as all dualities are intertwined. But the Absolute, the Universal, has no such opposite, and that is precisely the reason that the contingent world is illusory.

The universe doesn’t have to exist, and might not exist, therefore you cannot use the universe to argue to ‘true reality’ or the ‘Absolute.’ Your argument should be: The ‘Absolute’, therefore the universe. Instead you are forced to say: The universe, therefore the ‘Absolute’. And that is because your argument begins and ends in the universe. No universe; no argument.

It only begins and ends with the universe because, as in the rope/snake metaphor, we 'see' the snake first, only to then realize that it is none other than the rope. Only when the screen of Time, Space, and Causation are removed from our view do we properly see the universe for what it actually is, the Absolute. Returning to the rope/snake metaphor, we are able to see that the 'snake' is none other than the rope because of the already present way of seeing reality correctly, and that is also true of being able to see that the universe as none other than the Absolute because of the presence of our true nature, although it is more difficult to overcome the reinforcement of the conditioned mind in order to see this, and because we are dealing with the invisible world. There is no visible rope for our attention to easily return to.

And that is all it amounts to…a 'suggestion'. It’s an unproven and unprovable hypothesis, an absurdity even, where the advocate, as contingent being, hopes to demonstrate experience of necessary being.

Ha! It is the very Absolute nature embedded within the illusory contingent being that is the cause of this effort, unbeknownst to the contingent being, as well as it is also unbeknownst to you. This is the seeking phase of the cosmic game of Hide and Seek. Your true nature is involved in a very sophisticated game of hide and seek to the extent that it has lost itself in your illusory identity as 'cottage', who is busily and seriously going about pretending not to know that, even to the extent of disproving it, via total denial!:thud:

"That which you are seeking is what is causing you to seek"

"We already are that which we are seeking. Every spiritual path tells us this: "We are God man-ifest in time and eternity." "For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."
Cheri Huber, Zen Buddhist

So the question becomes: 'Who, or what, is it that is seeking?"

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Well then, how else can you know that the world is contingent, if not against that which is non-contingent? Might I suggest to you that the non-contingent is passive and one in which you are totally immersed, and that is the reason you are unaware of its presence, as a fish is unaware of the sea it is totally immersed in. Both you and the fish are preoccupied with focusing on what is in the contingent world, but even this preoccupation with phenomena is possible via of the passive background.

How do I know that the apple I am eating right now is not perfect if I have not eaten the perfect apple?

The metaphor is incorrect, because we do know that the world is contingent.

If such a 'perfect apple' existed, you would not form a concept of perfection nor imperfection until you had tasted of it. The apple you are eating is just the apple you are eating. However, if you taste other apples that are relatively better or worse tasting than the one you are now eating, you would form an opinion, but until you taste THE perfect apple, you still would not know, though you might start to wonder if such an apple did indeed exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

If such a 'perfect apple' existed, you would not form a concept of perfection nor imperfection until you had tasted of it.

I absolutely would. I have an imagination.

 

[godnotgod]

I absolutely would. I have an imagination.

For you to imagine such an apple, you would need first to form a concept of perfection. On what basis would you form such a concept?

Your first impression would most likely be that all apples taste like the one you are now eating, unless you are basing any difference on the visual differences (ie; color, form) from one apple to the next, or from one variety to another. Even then, there is no real basis for taste differentiation at that point, let alone an imaginary perfect tasting apple. However, you may form a concept of a perfect being that is the creator of the apple superior to your own self, since you cannot create an apple.

 

[godnotgod]

Brownian motion liquid?

Yes, the break that refreshes and revitalizes the spirit, restoring your faith, that you have never lost.

 

[godnotgod]

Despite everything you’ve written it is perfectly clear that, just like the rest of us, you don’t understand the nature of the universe and its origin. And while it is true that science cannot inform us of the origin of the universe (in spite of the BBE) it can study and formulate answers as theories in respect of the nature of reality - because whatever else there is, reality is phenomena and phenomena is reality. Scientists, unlike mystics and theists, only make hypotheses from which testable and measurable theories may follow, they do not make unfounded, question-begging assumptions. Science doesn’t assume that there is something other than phenomena and then make nonsensical statements about the impossibility of knowing something about that unknowable not-phenomena, as your last sentence absurdly implies.

First of all, science is not about trying to understand the nature of reality; it is focused on trying to explain, in rational terms, how the phenomenal world behaves, its characteristics, and how to predict its behavior. When science tells us that it 'understands' how something in nature works, it is only providing factual information. We KNOW how light and gravity WORK, and we can predict their behavior, but science does not understand the nature of either.

Secondly, when you say 'reality is phenomena, and vice-versa', you are only referring to temporal reality, which is not reality at all. A mirage is an illusion, just as the 'reality' of the phenomenal world is, both of which arise and subside. In other words, nothing of the phenomenal world fundamentally exists.

Thirdly, what science does assume, is that its methods (Logic, Reason, Analysis) are the ONLY means by which something can be said to be true or false. Its 'knowledge' is a highly controlled outcome of its highly controlled methodology, and it wants to test all other claims via those methods, which cannot be done. Another kind of approach is needed, one that is not controlled or subject to any methodology, so that reality can be seen exactly as it is.

In fact you directly contradict yourself because you’ve said: ‘Science is about phenomena, not reality…’ to which you then add: ‘…and phenomena is fast being proven to not be real at all.’
You’re all over the place with your arguments.

No, the argument is just one argument, but you are seeing it in terms of the illusion of multiplicity, that's all.

There is no contradiction: phenomena is illusory, but our conditioned mentality tells us it is real. QM refutes what our conditioned mentality tells us it is, but that is what mystics have told us all along.

It is you, I am afraid, who is in self-contradiction, as you insist that the phenomenal world is reality, where there is no condition of non-phenomena, because in doing so, you are unwittingly making it an absolute. The very moment you say 'phenomena', you are also saying 'non-phenomena', as the concept of 'existence' requires that of 'non-existence'. If you say that the phenomenal world is illusory, then you are also, in the same breath, saying that there exists something against which you are saying it is so that is non-illusory, and that is necessarily the Absolute. The Absolute is a condition in which there is no other, and since the phenomenal world is illusory, and does not fundamentally exist, it is no 'other' which can be compared to the Absolute. Only the Absolute is reality. There is no other.

"If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we [mistakenly] see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[godnotgod]

How do I know that the apple I am eating right now is not perfect if I have not eaten the perfect apple?

BTW, the original meaning of the 'Forbidden Fruit' in the Genesis account is that it is a symbol of Higher Consciousness, the partaking of which imparts perfect understanding, or Enlightenment. :rainbow1::eat:

...so you HAVE eaten the perfect apple. It's just that you don't remember, do you?, *wink*, *wink*, LOL.

 

[godnotgod]

"Simply provide a single example of a true experience, and show the “background against which he world is being manifested as the world”?

I'm saying to you there is no pond, frog, leaping or splashing. And there is no ‘I’. So now explain any self-contradiction in those two statements?

How is it that you KNOW that there is no pond, frog, leaping, splashing, nor any "I"? And if there is no "I", then who is it that determines whether they exist or not?

Solidity and space are facts about the world. I asked you to show what you claimed to know as ‘the background against which the [factual] world is manifested as the world’ and all you’ve done is to pose a question about the factual world! So again, what is this ‘background’? Provide instances or examples of this ‘background’ as new information about the world, derived from enlightenment or a ‘higher state of consciousness’, without any reference whatsoever to the non-necessary factual world.

Space is essential to Solids as the Absolute is essential to the Relative. Space is the background, or field, against which Solids are seen, as the Absolute is the background or field against which the phenomenal world is seen. If no such background exists, then your stand-alone contingent world is the Absolute, which it cannot be since it is temporal, comes and goes, and is, therefore, illusory, UNLESS it is the Absolute which is responsible for the manifestation of the phenomenal world, in which case the universe IS the Absolute itself, as seen through the screen of Time, Space, and Causation.

 

[Tiberius]

For you to imagine such an apple, you would need first to form a concept of perfection. On what basis would you form such a concept?

Ah, so to be aware that there is a perfect anything, one must first experience that perfect anything.

Have you experienced anything perfect?

All I see is more of your unsupported claims, GNG...

 

[godnotgod]

Ah, so to be aware that there is a perfect anything, one must first experience that perfect anything.

Have you experienced anything perfect?

All I see is more of your unsupported claims, GNG...

In the experience of Perfection, there is no experiencer of Perfection.

Perfection and its experience are one and the same.

We are the Perfection itself, but we choose to ignore it as our attention is captured by the noise of the world.

 

[Tiberius]

In the experience of Perfection, there is no experiencer of Perfection.

Perfection and its experience are one and the same.

We are the Perfection itself, but we choose to ignore it as our attention is captured by the noise of the world.

If no one can experience perfection, how can we know that it exists?

And how is it that we are unable to experience perfection if we ARE perfection?

 

[godnotgod]

"Whatever we see is changing, losing its balance. The reason everything looks beautiful is because it is out of balance, but its background is always in perfect harmony. This is how everything exists in the realm of Buddha Nature, losing its balance against a background of perfect balance. So if you see things without realizing the background of Buddha Nature, everything appears to be in the form of suffering. But if you understand the background of existence, you realize that suffering itself is how we live, and how we extend our life. So in Zen we sometimes emphasize the imbalance or disorder of life."

Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, by Shunryu Suzuki

So by including the background, or field, to worldly existence in our view, we get the complete picture. Life and death are seen and understood in their proper context, as the wave is seen in the proper context of the sea from which it emerges, and to which it returns.

 

[godnotgod]

If no one can experience perfection, how can we know that it exists?

By getting ourselves out of our own way.

And how is it that we are unable to experience perfection if we ARE perfection?

But there is nothing to prevent us from doing so. We are birds in cages with open doors. Part of the problem is due to the rational mind forming concepts of perfection, which creates concepts of imperfection, keeping our conscious attention focused in the illusory dual world.We choose to stay in Plato's Cave, our minds locked in enslaved attention on the shadows cast upon its walls due to fear and indoctrination. That is why consciousness is so crucial. With it, we are able to SEE what our condition is, as Prophet tells us, and make progress toward a more enlightened, and therefore, happier state of being.

 

[EnochSDP]

i am a muslim and believe that God exists however i don't need to argue that he exists, because by convincing you that he exists won't make God any more real than he is, there are about 6 billion people who believe in God. if your questions are honest and sincere i'd like to hear them.

there are about 7 billion people so your saying 85% believe in God?I disagree greatly!How can you not debate God since it would make people believe!That hints to refusing gentiles and the heathen!