The Debate of God.

[cottage]

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.

This is merely splitting hairs.In scientific terms the ‘nature of reality’ simply refers to the natural world, which is what scientists study, as opposed to supposed supernatural or mystical explanations.

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.

The above statement ‘you are only referring to temporal reality’ (ie form and matter) classically shows that it is impossible to deny what there is without self-contradiction. And yet no contradiction or absurdity is involved when it is said ‘The Absolute is an illusion.’ So it is more evidently the case that nothing fundamental exists as ‘true reality’!

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.

That statement is definitely incorrect! Science is concerned with probabilities not certainties, and they are derived through confirmation via falsification or repetition, not pronouncements of truth or falsity.

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.

How can science (the study of facts) ‘prove’ that science is ‘not real at all’, when the very essence of your argument is that science (fact) is not real? (!)

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.

The contradiction concerns what you said about scientists’ pronouncements. You are saying they know what they say they cannot know. “QM refutes what our conditioned mentality tells us it is, but that is what mystics have told us all along.” “Science is about phenomena, not reality, and phenomena is fast being proven to not be too real after all.”
To which I replied:
“Scientists, unlike mystics and theists, only make hypotheses from which testable and measurable theories may follow, they do not make unfounded, question-begging assumptions.” And in particular:
“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.”

However, I’ll address your above response anyway. Now your argument must begin and end in the physical world because you are constrained to make your case solely in those terms. You need physical phenomena in order to argue against it. But your argument is risible and ironic, for while the contingent world may not exist at all there is of course something that is necessary (‘non-illusory’ in your terms) and must exist, and it isn’t an imagined transcendental utopia, but is comprised as the most fundamental, self-evidently logical, and anti-sceptical case that can be made. Consider that while the universe and every scrap of matter can be annihilated in thought, you cannot annihilate thought itself, for even when there is no thinking, the thoughts themselves remain true or false, and yet while nothing that is seen or experienced is necessarily true it still requires thought as recollection or appraisal, and self-evidently you can’t bring an argument to the table minus logic. Everything thus is mind dependent, and whatever the mind can conceive to be existent it can conceive to be non-existent, with the sole exception of the logical mind itself.

 

[cottage]

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.

I’m sorry but that doesn’t really make sense in the context of the question that you asked: “Well then, how else can you know that the world is contingent, if not against that which is non-contingent?”
And my reply was: “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.”
In other words we understand the world to be contingent (as opposed to ‘illusory’) because it isn’t necessary, not because of perceptual errors or misinformation.

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 clause ‘personal’ in parenthesis makes no difference at all, since no experience is demonstrable. And I’m sure it must have occurred that, you, too, operate in the ‘sphere of relative opposites’ and ‘posit one argument [to] eliminate its opposite’? And what truth inheres in your last sentence? If we are hallucinating, as you asserted earlier, please explain what it is that we see without the hallucination, and how it is necessarily true.

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.

There seems to be constant conflation between the terms contingency and illusion. They are not the same thing. Misperception may (or may not) be a feature of contingent existence, and it certainly doesn’t imply necessity.

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!

May I remind you that there is no ‘my true nature’ or ‘cottage’ that has lost its identity, to use your own argument against you! Once again we see the case you’re making for a mystical belief is firmly entrenched in the material world.

 

[cottage]

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?

I’m rather bemused that you feel it necessary for me to introduce an ‘I’ or a self as the arbiter of truth, when your own argument is that such things are illusory and that your ‘true reality’ has no need of phenomenal concepts!! It is those very referents that we both agree are misleading. But in case you’ve changed your mind I can tell you there is no demonstrable ‘I’ or personal identity to which any thought or concept can be attributed. Similarly there are no ponds, frogs, or acts of leaping and splashing that have any logically necessary existence. The criterion of truth is self-evidence, and where denial leads us into uttering an absurdity, which is why I’m puzzled as to why you would expect me (or anyone else) to even consider, never mind accept as certain truth, a mere sequence of words – it isn’t even contingently true!

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.

The first sentence just wanders off into abstract terms that are relative to the factual world, rather than addressing the question, and the rest is specious. Here is your (fallacious) argument, which throughout the thread you are repeating ad infinitum.

1. The Absolute is the background against which the phenomenal world is seen.
2. If no Absolute exists then the phenomenal world is the Absolute
3. But the phenomenal world cannot be the Absolute because the phenomenal world is contingent
Therefore the Absolute is the manifestation of the phenomenal world

Premise 1 is not true. It brazenly presumes the truth of what the argument wants to prove. The conclusion therefore is false. And it is self-evidently and contradictorily reliant on the principle of causation, ie upon worldly phenomena!)

You must demonstrate the truth of what you claim; you cannot simply assert it! And also you need to explain the ‘Absolute’ without reference to the phenomena on which it appears utterly dependent.

 

[godnotgod]

This is merely splitting hairs. In scientific terms the ‘nature of reality’ simply refers to the natural world, which is what scientists study, as opposed to supposed supernatural or mystical explanations.

Is that so? Well tell me, now: what does science say the nature of reality IS?

[The above statement ‘you are only referring to temporal reality’ (ie form and matter) classically shows that it is impossible to deny what there is without self-contradiction. And yet no contradiction or absurdity is involved when it is said ‘The Absolute is an illusion.’ So it is more evidently the case that nothing fundamental exists as ‘true reality’!

Unless true reality exists beyond your method of investigation.

That statement is definitely incorrect! Science is concerned with probabilities not certainties, and they are derived through confirmation via falsification or repetition, not pronouncements of truth or falsity.

Does'nt confirmation equate to certainty? In addition, a 'theory' in science equates to a working fact, as in the 'theory of gravity' or the 'theory of evolution'. But my point is that science assumes that its methodology is the most valid one in approaching what the world is about.

How can science (the study of facts) ‘prove’ that science is ‘not real at all’, when the very essence of your argument is that science (fact) is not real? (!

)

Exactly!

The contradiction concerns what you said about scientists’ pronouncements. You are saying they know what they say they cannot know. “QM refutes what our conditioned mentality tells us it is, but that is what mystics have told us all along.” “Science is about phenomena, not reality, and phenomena is fast being proven to not be too real after all.” Scientists, unlike mystics and theists, only make hypotheses from which testable and measurable theories may follow, they do not make unfounded, question-begging assumptions.” And in particular:
“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.”

However, I’ll address your above response anyway. Now your argument must begin and end in the physical world because you are constrained to make your case solely in those terms. You need physical phenomena in order to argue against it. But your argument is risible and ironic, for while the contingent world may not exist at all there is of course something that is necessary (‘non-illusory’ in your terms) and must exist, and it isn’t an imagined transcendental utopia, but is comprised as the most fundamental, self-evidently logical, and anti-sceptical case that can be made. Consider that while the universe and every scrap of matter can be annihilated in thought, you cannot annihilate thought itself, for even when there is no thinking, the thoughts themselves remain true or false, and yet while nothing that is seen or experienced is necessarily true it still requires thought as recollection or appraisal, and self-evidently you can’t bring an argument to the table minus logic. Everything thus is mind dependent, and whatever the mind can conceive to be existent it can conceive to be non-existent, with the sole exception of the logical mind itself.

Before mind, before thought, before 'physical', before 'existent' or 'non-existence' duality, there must be consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I’m sorry but that doesn’t really make sense in the context of the question that you asked: “Well then, how else can you know that the world is contingent, if not against that which is non-contingent?”
And my reply was: “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.”
In other words we understand the world to be contingent (as opposed to ‘illusory&#8217 because it isn’t necessary, not because of perceptual errors or misinformation.

I am assuming by 'contingent', you intend it in the following definition:

con·tin·gent   
Logic . (of a proposition) neither logically necessary nor logically impossible, so that its truth or falsity can be established only by sensory observation.

But what I am saying to you is that we can see and understand the true nature of the contingent world, not via sensory observation, which is faulty, but via of higher consciousness, which is not. The problem with your argument is that you substitute the condition of having prior knowledge with that of necessity. But the question remains: by what means do you determine its necessity or non-necessity? You are making statements as if they are true and then saying that nothing can be determined to be true or false due to perceptual errors.

The clause ‘personal’ in parenthesis makes no difference at all, since no experience is demonstrable. And I’m sure it must have occurred that, you, too, operate in the ‘sphere of relative opposites’ and ‘posit one argument [to] eliminate its opposite’? And what truth inheres in your last sentence? If we are hallucinating, as you asserted earlier, please explain what it is that we see without the hallucination, and how it is necessarily true.

Higher consciousness transcends "I" and all dualities and sees them exactly the way they are: seamless and singular. If you do not see reality the way it is, then the only other way you can see it is as it is not. It sounds to me as if you are claiming that reality cannot be determined at all because we see it via perceptual error, which is our only option. But to see via perceptual error implies its opposite, which, of course, is still in the realm of duality. Higher consciousness says that there is neither error nor not-error, but simply that which is.

May I remind you that there is no ‘my true nature’ or ‘cottage’ that has lost its identity, to use your own argument against you! Once again we see the case you’re making for a mystical belief is firmly entrenched in the material world.

No, it is entrenched in consciousness. My argument only comes about because others make statements based on the physical world, which is a function of consciousness, and not the other way around.

 

[godnotgod]

I’m rather bemused that you feel it necessary for me to introduce an ‘I’ or a self as the arbiter of truth, when your own argument is that such things are illusory and that your ‘true reality’ has no need of phenomenal concepts!! It is those very referents that we both agree are misleading. But in case you’ve changed your mind I can tell you there is no demonstrable ‘I’ or personal identity to which any thought or concept can be attributed. Similarly there are no ponds, frogs, or acts of leaping and splashing that have any logically necessary existence. The criterion of truth is self-evidence, and where denial leads us into uttering an absurdity, which is why I’m puzzled as to why you would expect me (or anyone else) to even consider, never mind accept as certain truth, a mere sequence of words – it isn’t even contingently true!

...as compared to non-contingently true.

What is absurd is the fact that, while you are saying there is no "I" which determines anything, you then turn around and claim a condition you call 'self-evident'. For something to be understood as 'self-evident', requires consciousness, but not a consciousness that is possessed of any "I". And if it understands it as 'self-evident', then it sees it as it is. And if it sees it as it is, then it is seen correctly. Therefore, there is an experience that is true.

1. The Absolute is the background against which the phenomenal world is seen.

2. If no Absolute exists then the phenomenal world is the Absolute

3. But the phenomenal world cannot be the Absolute because the phenomenal world is contingent

Therefore the Absolute is the manifestation of the phenomenal world

Premise 1 is not true. It brazenly presumes the truth of what the argument wants to prove. The conclusion therefore is false. And it is self-evidently and contradictorily reliant on the principle of causation, ie upon worldly phenomena!)

One thing can be shared into two different places, but in fact it is the same thing. This is the nature of the inseparability of these two things, in other words we can call it the non-differentiation between the relative and ultimate reality.

Return to the rope/snake metaphor, where the rope is the Absolute and the snake is the world. In reality, what is mistakenly seen as the 'snake' is actually the rope. The snake is only real when the rope is seen incorrectly. When seen incorrectly, duality is thought to be actual. When seen correctly, duality is seen as one. Were it not for the rope, no snake can be manifested. But the rope is not dependent upon the snake, as the illusion of the snake is upon the rope. So there is only one reality, the Absolute; the other 'reality', is illusory.

 

[godnotgod]

See, you've wasted 50+ pages going all batty on us and then you pull out something this accurate and brilliant.

Were you having us on this whole time?

So you are still playing Hide and Seek, pretending not to know, are you? Good job!

Joke:

Q: Who was the dead blonde in the closet?
A: The 1986 Hide and Seek winner!

 

[godnotgod]

There's a lot of false inserted into what Jesus supposedly said, too. And that false that was inserted into what Jesus said is the same false message you conclude was preached by Paul as well.

What separates Jesus and Paul here? Why do we give Jesus a pass and condemn Paul? Is it beyond possibility that the same group who placed their corruption upon Jesus' message thought to do the same to Paul's message?

The 'Jesus' that modern Christianity gives a pass to is primarily Paul's concoction. We only condemn Paul when we find this out, and that the real 'Jesus' was Yeshu, a mystical Essene Jew who had no plan on being crucified, who did not teach a virgin birth, who was vegetarian and did not believe in animal sacrifice, let alone human sacrifice, and who taught spiritual resurrection, not bodily resurrection.

The original teachings are mystical in nature. Scripture is a second-hand account about the mystical experience, which eventually forms the basis for an orthodox belief system, which is what modern Christianity has become, but the only way to verify the veracity of any orthodox teaching is via the first-hand mystical experience.

There are many clues which give Paul away as a fake, the main one for me being his claim of the alleged '500' eyewitnesses, of which he made the additional claim that some were even surviving when he wrote that some 50 years after Yeshu's death. The Resurrection is THE single most important event that has ever happened to mankind, and Paul does not even bother to interview the surviving eyewitnesses? On top of that, virtually nothing is written from Yeshu's death until Paul, as if the entire story were kept in some kind of vacuum. We have not a single written word either from any of the 500, or from anyone who may have bothered to transcribe their oral accounts into word. This vacuum smacks of the same kind of omission as that of Yeshu's 18 or so missing years, in which God in the flesh lived a quiet, unassuming life in the non-existent village of 'Nazareth'. What these stories amount to under the light of scrutiny is sheer poppycock.

See here for more on how Paul corrupted Yeshu's teachings:

http://30ce.com/mithras.htm

 

[Prophet]

The 'Jesus' that modern Christianity gives a pass to is primarily Paul's concoction. We only condemn Paul when we find this out, and that the real 'Jesus' was Yeshu, a mystical Essene Jew who had no plan on being crucified, who did not teach a virgin birth, who was vegetarian and did not believe in animal sacrifice, let alone human sacrifice, and who taught spiritual resurrection, not bodily resurrection.

This expresses your disagreement with me. Your strong, certain wording indicates to me that you believe this is more than a disagreement that you have presented me with. You seem to believe what you have supplied stands on its own as a rational argument for your case over mine. It is not.

Which leads me to the sad task of quoting myself for someone who claims to believe in my Prophethood.

Please supply a rationale which precludes what I feel to be the most obvious interpretation: the Roman Empire persecuted Christianity harshly, and when this upstart religion still stubbornly survived, they spread misinformation about Christianity through their own gospels (today known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) as well as their redactions upon the epistles of various apostles not limited to Paul.

This time, try and show me what rules my argument out and makes yours superior, rather than stating your opinion with puffed-up feigned certainty. I assure you that I can tell the difference.

The original teachings are mystical in nature. Scripture is a second-hand account about the mystical experience, which eventually forms the basis for an orthodox belief system, which is what modern Christianity has become, but the only way to verify the veracity of any orthodox teaching is via the first-hand mystical experience.

And between us, who has this first-hand mystical experience? I accept Paul, not because of some prejudice or preference, but rather that I, myself, identify with him. I have read his words and feel his knowledge one with mine. I recognize his thoughts.

And for the record, my history shows I'm fully willing to throw an accepted prophet under the bus. I've discussed the deceptions of the false prophet Moses several times on these forums.

There are many clues which give Paul away as a fake, the main one for me being his claim of the alleged '500' eyewitnesses, of which he made the additional claim that some were even surviving when he wrote that some 50 years after Yeshu's death. The Resurrection is THE single most important event that has ever happened to mankind, and Paul does not even bother to interview the surviving eyewitnesses? On top of that, virtually nothing is written from Yeshu's death until Paul, as if the entire story were kept in some kind of vacuum. We have not a single written word either from any of the 500, or from anyone who may have bothered to transcribe their oral accounts into word. This vacuum smacks of the same kind of omission as that of Yeshu's 18 or so missing years, in which God in the flesh lived a quiet, unassuming life in the non-existent village of 'Nazareth'. What these stories amount to under the light of scrutiny is sheer poppycock.

Again, you have mastered disagreeing with me. Now you should present why Paul must have necessarily been the one who corrupted Christianity, and I am fairly certain you won't. What, exactly, stops the Romans editing the canonized Bible however the hell they wanted to, including writing in a BS list of witnesses to defend their lie? Its obvious how the Roman Empire could pull this off. They can kill anyone they want. They can have whatever writings they want burned with a simple decree. How exactly would Paul pull off this coup without all of the power of an empire?

The how is just the half of it. How about the why? My case includes rational self-preserving motives for the Roman Empire. Your case seem to be saying Paul just decided to be a deceiver for the fun of being persecuted and beheaded, and perhaps a side of fame. It seems my argument is superior in both how and why.

See here for more on how Paul corrupted Yeshu's teachings:[/COLOR]

Paul and the Mystery Religions

I thank you for this link, but I am not interested in reading it because I don't know which part of it is what you are arguing. Please, feel free to paste what you feel to be particularly convincing, so that I may verbally rip it to shreds.

Update: Out of morbid curiosity I clicked on that link and started reading and it was so awful I had to stop reading. I have an intermittently crazy friend who sometimes insists on torturing me with his poorly crafted theories. If you are out there, Andy, this link reminded me of you.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, you have mastered disagreeing with me. Now you should present why Paul must have necessarily been the one who corrupted Christianity, and I am fairly certain you won't. What, exactly, stops the Romans editing the canonized Bible however the hell they wanted to, including writing in a BS list of witnesses to defend their lie? Its obvious how the Roman Empire could pull this off. They can kill anyone they want. They can have whatever writings they want burned with a simple decree. How exactly would Paul pull off this coup without all of the power of an empire?

Some sources (Essenes) even say that Paul was a secret agent of the Romans who infiltrated the Essene Nazarenes:

"The reader may choose between two theories on the motive of Paul: 1) He was unwittingly influenced by negative, disembodied demons; 2) He was a secret agent planted by the Roman police, working in league with the Jewish puppet-government and high priest installed by Rome. My own opinion -- and this was the opinion of the Essene Christians -- is that both the above are true: Paul was unknowingly influenced by disembodied demonic powers and, also, worked knowingly with corrupt worldly powers. But regardless of Paul's motive, all of the sources in this article are in agreement in regard to the following: PAUL CRAFTILY INFILTRATED THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT AND SUBVERTED IT."
*****

In The Story of Christian Origins, Martin Larson writes:

"Paul declares that... the Elect may even eat meat sacrificed to idols.... Whereas Jesus honored women and found in them His most devoted followers, Paul never tires of proclaiming their inferiority. He declares that, man is the head of the woman and she must always submit to his will.... Whereas the Essenes proclaimed equality among the Brethren [the Essenes were the first people on earth to condemn and forbid the practice of slavery], Paul repeatedly declares that Christian slaves must be obedient to their Christian masters."

In one of the best books on early Christianity, Those Incredible Christians, Dr. Hugh Schonfield reports:

"For the Apostolic Church much that Paul taught was grievous error not at all in accord with the mind and message of the Messiah. The original Apostles could urge that the truth was known by them. But Paul had never companied with Jesus or heard what he said day after day [remember: Paul had never even met Jesus], and Paul's visions were the delusions of this own misguided mind....

"It was not only the teaching and activities of Paul which made him obnoxious to the Christian leaders: but their awareness that he set his revelations above their authority and claimed an intimacy with the mind of Jesus, greater than that of those who had companied with him on earth and had been chosen by him.... It was an abomination, especially as his ideas were so contrary to what they knew of Jesus, that he should pose as the embodiment of the Messiah 's will.... Paul was seen as the demon-driven enemy of the Messiah.... For the legitimate Church, Paul was a dangerous and disruptive influence, bent on enlisting a large following among the Gentiles in order to provide himself with a numerical superiority with the support of which he could set at defiance the Elders at Jerusalem. Paul had been the enemy from the beginning, and because he failed in his former open hostility he had craftily insinuated himself into the fold to destroy it from within."

YAHSHUA Or Paul?
*****

It sounds from your tone that you take what you perceive as my 'disagreement' with you very personally. You even sound angry. As for 'believing in your 'Prophethood', I neither believe, nor not-believe, though I have at times pointed out my agreement with some of your statements, and my disagreement on others.

It is not so much that I disagree with you in the sense that I am opposed to you, but more that I agree with many others who are saying much the same thing about Paul, and much more, and more and more as time goes on.

While I allow the possibility that your position may, in fact, be true, I find it far more likely, when all of the evidence about Paul and Yeshu is taken into account AS A WHOLE, that Paul comes across as a charlatan out to both make a name for himself and to save his rear end.

I pointed out just one point, but a very important one, about Paul and his casual allusion to the remaining living alleged 'eyewitnesses' of the original '500', being that he did not even bother to document their testimony. This alone makes anything else Paul says suspect. I feel Paul is obviously exaggerating when he assigns the number of 500 to the number of eyewitnesses to the so-called 'resurrection'. Add to this his negligence to interview those contemporary survivors, and we have what smacks of a downright lie. On top of that, Paul then proceeds to make it a point that Jesus even appeared to him. This is important in light of the fact that Paul never met Jesus. Paul uses this ploy to lend himself credulity and authority.

Now I have provided a tad of information pointing to a fake Paul.

What have you to suggest that the Romans edited the canonized Bible?

 

[godnotgod]

I thank you for this link, but I am not interested in reading it because I don't know which part of it is what you are arguing. Please, feel free to paste what you feel to be particularly convincing, so that I may verbally rip it to shreds.

Defense leads to offense. That is why the truly enlightened remain unattached to either position. But you have already made up your mind, indicating your strong, even personal, attachment to Paul, which, it appears, is the reason you choose aggression even prior to knowing what anything is about. In other words, you take my criticism of Paul as an attack on you, which it is not.

 

[Prophet]

Defense leads to offense. That is why the truly enlightened remain unattached to either position. But you have already made up your mind, indicating your strong, even personal, attachment to Paul, which, it appears, is the reason you choose aggression even prior to knowing what anything is about. In other words, you take my criticism of Paul as an attack on you, which it is not.

Strings of unsupported non sequitur certainly are an assault on the minds of those easily brainwashed.

For me, they are a mere annoyance to be ignored.

Best of luck to you.

 

[cottage]

Is that so? Well tell me, now: what does science say the nature of reality IS?

The nature of reality simply refers to the observed features of the natural world, facts, form and matter, which is what scientists study, as opposed to supposed supernatural or mystical explanations.

Unless true reality exists beyond your method of investigation.

But that’s really saying nothing at all. That’s like saying if India was in Europe it wouldn’t be in Asia.

Does'nt confirmation equate to certainty? In addition, a 'theory' in science equates to a working fact, as in the 'theory of gravity' or the 'theory of evolution'. But my point is that science assumes that its methodology is the most valid one in approaching what the world is about.

In science confirmation does not equate to what is certain but to what is the most probable. And the very reason the method is valid is because no theory is immune to challenge; and, unlike religious or mystical dogma, it is only held to be nominally true - until or unless it is disproved and superseded by another.

Exactly!

Well, I'm pleased you agree that QM pontificating on what is not real is unmitigated nonsense if QM itself is not real!

Before mind, before thought, before 'physical', before 'existent' or 'non-existence' duality, there must be consciousness.

In general use, consciousness and mind are essentially the same thing as in the ‘conscious mind’. However, the concept of ‘consciousness’ is hugely problematic; it is a vague term with an imprecise meaning, although it is generally defined as awareness, which in turn implies a thing knowing itself, whereas thoughts are logically prior to everything.

 

[cottage]

I am assuming by 'contingent', you intend it in the following definition:

con·tin·gent   
Logic . (of a proposition) neither logically necessary nor logically impossible, so that its truth or falsity can be established only by sensory observation.

But what I am saying to you is that we can see and understand the true nature of the contingent world, not via sensory observation, which is faulty, but via of higher consciousness, which is not. The problem with your argument is that you substitute the condition of having prior knowledge with that of necessity. But the question remains: by what means do you determine its necessity or non-necessity? You are making statements as if they are true and then saying that nothing can be determined to be true or false due to perceptual errors.

I’ll explain it very simply: A thing is possible if and only if it is not necessarily false. A thing is necessary if and only if it is not possibly false. A thing is contingent if and only if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true. So your second sentence is confused, for true knowledge is certain and therefore it is necessary. Thus, with respect, it is you who are continually saying things as if they were true, such as your first sentence above, but you never develop your argument beyond those dogmatic assertions.

Higher consciousness transcends "I" and all dualities and sees them exactly the way they are: seamless and singular. If you do not see reality the way it is, then the only other way you can see it is as it is not. It sounds to me as if you are claiming that reality cannot be determined at all because we see it via perceptual error, which is our only option. But to see via perceptual error implies its opposite, which, of course, is still in the realm of duality. Higher consciousness says that there is neither error nor not-error, but simply that which is.

No, I am not saying ‘reality cannot be determined at all because we see it via perceptual errors’. What I am saying is that reality is contingent; it is what it is but it needn’t be what it is, or in other words it need not exist at all. In contrast, ‘Higher consciousness’ is just an idea, a doctrinal belief to which you subscribe; but it has no truth-value and this is made clear by your inability to explain what is ‘seen’ without the hallucination.

No, it is entrenched in consciousness. My argument only comes about because others make statements based on the physical world, which is a function of consciousness, and not the other way around.

Everything is a product of mind, including the physical world and mystical notions.

 

[cottage]

...as compared to non-contingently true.

Yes! (Although I think you meant ‘as compared with necessarily true’?)

What is absurd is the fact that, while you are saying there is no "I" which determines anything, you then turn around and claim a condition you call 'self-evident'. For something to be understood as 'self-evident', requires consciousness, but not a consciousness that is possessed of any "I". And if it understands it as 'self-evident', then it sees it as it is. And if it sees it as it is, then it is seen correctly. Therefore, there is an experience that is true.

Understanding and experience are not the same thing. ‘If it is raining (p)‘it is not raining (not-p) is false’, and that is true of the experience. But now delete the word ‘raining’. The sentence is necessarily true even though the experience it describes isn’t. p being true because not-p is impossible isn’t an experience, ie something that can be denied. A thing is the same as itself (A=A) is true in all possible worlds, and the logic obtains notwithstanding any experience or supposed self-awareness.

One thing can be shared into two different places, but in fact it is the same thing. This is the nature of the inseparability of these two things, in other words we can call it the non-differentiation between the relative and ultimate reality.

I’m not sure of the relevance of that answer in respect of what I posted. Your argument was demonstrably unsound, and it called upon a feature of contingent world to demonstrate the truth of the ‘Absolute’. But there is no logical necessity in cause and effect, as Hume explains: ‘Let anyone define a cause, without comprehending, as part of the definition, a necessary connection with its effect; and let him show distinctly the origin of the idea, expressed by the definition; and I shall readily give up the whole controversy.’ So the ‘Absolute’ depends upon a non-necessary feature of the universe, which is self-evidently absurd. This circularity (The Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference) identifies the impossibility of directly observing causal effects. And so the ‘Absolute’ is dependent upon the assumption that a sequence of events must always follow, which is dependent upon a yet further assumption that such a phenomenon exists outside the world of experience.

Return to the rope/snake metaphor, where the rope is the Absolute and the snake is the world. In reality, what is mistakenly seen as the 'snake' is actually the rope. The snake is only real when the rope is seen incorrectly. When seen incorrectly, duality is thought to be actual. When seen correctly, duality is seen as one. Were it not for the rope, no snake can be manifested. But the rope is not dependent upon the snake, as the illusion of the snake is upon the rope. So there is only one reality, the Absolute; the other 'reality', is illusory.

Endlessly repeating the same dogma isn’t argument. This is really no different from a theist referring to the Bible to support his claim that God exists. With theists it’s allegory and with you it’s metaphors. It’s not argument; it’s belief as faith in both cases. You say things such as ‘when seen correctly’ but it would seem that you have no idea what form this ‘correctly seen’ thing takes.

PS I believe you've yet to answer my post 1478?

 

[godnotgod]

Strings of unsupported non sequitur certainly are an assault on the minds of those easily brainwashed.

For me, they are a mere annoyance to be ignored.

Best of luck to you.

I see. I am merely a speck of dust that you can non-chalantly flick away at your whim. jolly.

Unsupported? Look at your own comments. What I allude to is glaringly obvious. No brainwashing required.

 

[Tiberius]

By getting ourselves out of our own way.

How typically vague of you.

Vagueness: The last refuge of he who has nothing.

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.

Ah, so you tried your meditation or whatever, found it lead you something interesting, and then concluded that since it was different, it must be right.

Truth can withstand objective investigation. Explain how I can OBJECTIVELY test what you say.

 

[godnotgod]

How typically vague of you.

Vagueness: The last refuge of he who has nothing.

No-thing: that from which Every-thing ensues.

Ah, so you tried your meditation or whatever, found it lead you something interesting, and then concluded that since it was different, it must be right.

No, silly: the true nature of reality is beyond right and wrong. That is why it is called the true nature of reality.

Truth can withstand objective investigation. Explain how I can OBJECTIVELY test what you say.

There is no 'objective' or 'subjective'. Those are merely conceptual ideas born of the rational mind in its feeble attempt to encapsulate reality. Never mind trying to 'test' anything. You're just fooling yourself. Just get yourself beyond the dual world and then return here and tell me what you see. Until then, all you are doing is going back and forth, round and round in a gyrating fatuity. But WHEN you do...OMG!... you will go dancing wildly in the streets unable to contain yourself as you revel in unison with the Absolute Joy of the Cosmos!...but, then again, you may deny what you see, and return to your predictable and therefore, dull and dead 'science', and the unmistakable odor of laboratory formaldehyde, having missed the sudden flash of light in the dark, the moment of truth, the moment of ecstasy.

There is nothing I have for you. You will simply have to go and see for yourself. I cannot do your seeing for you. Enjoy!

Clue: the more you stimulate the 'objective', the more the 'subjective' will come into play.

 

[godnotgod]

The nature of reality simply refers to the observed features of the natural world, facts, form and matter, which is what scientists study as opposed to supposed supernatural or mystical explanations.

Then comes QM which turns all that on its head. So now what is the nature of reality?

'features, facts, form, and matter': so science studies appearances?

 

[cottage]

Then comes QM which turns all that on its head. So now what is the nature of reality?

'features, facts, form, and matter': so science studies appearances?

In the simplest possible terms, science studies phenomena and the operation of general laws by the scientific method (empirical) and the mathematical method (logic). Any theory, or whatever is stated, must be capable of disproof (falsifiable), which why it doesn’t venture into religion and the supernatural. I’ll leave you muse on that last point, especially with regard to your first sentence.