The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Quote:
Mind functions logically, rationally

Only with a lot of practice. Otherwise, it only looks like it does.

Exactly, and that is the problem. But where there is no mind to get in the way, we see directly, without distortion. The mind is a conceptual filter through which we interpret the world via Time, Space, and Causation, and that is where the distortions lie.

 

[PolyHedral]

Describe the Absolute, please.

 

[godnotgod]

Describe the Absolute, please.

Since the Absolute is not a thing, it cannot be described in positive terms. But it can be described in terms of what it is not. It is the Causeless, Undivided, Unborn, Unmanifested, Changeless, Non-Dual and Infinite Ground of Being.


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

Since [the Absolute] is not in Time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in Time. And since it is not in Space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in Space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be Infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. 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 see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms. "

The Equations of Maya

In other words, the first cause of our physics is apparitional, that our physics is the physics of an apparitional Universe.

 

[Tiberius]

So your definition is useless.

 

[godnotgod]

So your definition is useless.

No candy for you today, boo hoo hoo. :sorry1:

(So...did you understand any more of the story of the moon in the water, or do you still think it's meaning is literal?)

 

[godnotgod]

So your definition is useless.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 11

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore profit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.

 

[Tiberius]

No candy for you today, boo hoo hoo. :sorry1:

I'm devastated...

(So...did you understand any more of the story of the moon in the water, or do you still think it's meaning is literal?)

When did I ever say literal? The metaphor of the meaning needs to be explained.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm devastated...

When did I ever say literal?

When you referred to moons spilling out of your fridge, LOL.

The metaphor of the meaning needs to be explained.

C'mon, now! metaphors are what they are because they need no explanation. Use your head: what does the metaphor refer to?

 

[Tiberius]

No idea. Funnily enough, I've never heard of the moon's reflection in a bucket of water being used as a metaphor before...

 

[godnotgod]

No idea. Funnily enough, I've never heard of the moon's reflection in a bucket of water being used as a metaphor before...

Think: what is the story about, primarily?

 

[PolyHedral]

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 11

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;
It is the center hole that makes it useful.
Shape clay into a vessel;
It is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a room;
It is the holes which make it useful.
Therefore profit comes from what is there;
Usefulness from what is not there.

Referring to a lack as an object in itself is, at best, a very poetic way of getting everyone quite confused. At worst, it is completely incoherent. The holes in the various objects are, by definition, not part of the objects themselves.

 

[godnotgod]

Referring to a lack as an object in itself is, at best, a very poetic way of getting everyone quite confused. At worst, it is completely incoherent. The holes in the various objects are, by definition, not part of the objects themselves.

No? C'mon now, use your head. Is it possible to have a pot without the empty space within? Is it possible to have a universe with all its planets, stars, and galaxies without empty space to define them? Read it again: it is not referring to the the empty space as an object. The space is no-thing, so it is the exact opposite of an object, further proof that solid objects require empty space to exist.

 

[Vultar]

No? C'mon now, use your head. Is it possible to have a pot without the empty space within? Is it possible to have a universe with all its planets, stars, and galaxies without empty space to define them? Read it again: it is not referring to the the empty space as an object. The space is no-thing, so it is the exact opposite of an object, further proof that solid objects require empty space to exist.

Yes, you can have a pot without the empty space within. We call it "filling the pot".
As far as space, even a vacuum contains some particles (they just suck )

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, you can have a pot without the empty space within. We call it "filling the pot".

Let's not be silly, shall we? We call it 'filling the [space within the] pot'.

As far as space, even a vacuum contains some particles (they just suck )

Yes, you see, as you said, the space CONTAINS some particles, so ultimately, the space is nada, zilch, no-thing.

 

[Dan4reason]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Well there is no evidence for God's existence so therefore there is no reason to believe in him.

 

[godnotgod]

Well there is no evidence for God's existence so therefore there is no reason to believe in him.

Hiding that thoroughly from yourself, are you?

Bullet-proof Logic!

Outstanding poker face! :cigar: :clap

 

[Tiberius]

Think: what is the story about, primarily?

I honestly don't care all that much. If you have a point to make, make it. And I suggest that if you want to make a point, don't rely on something that is open to interpretation, because different people will have different interpretations.

 

[Tiberius]

Hiding that thoroughly from yourself, are you?

Bullet-proof Logic!

Outstanding poker face! :cigar: :clap

Do you believe in leprechauns?

 

[Dan4reason]

Hiding that thoroughly from yourself, are you?

Bullet-proof Logic!

Outstanding poker face! :cigar: :clap

Ad hominem attack. Try again.

 

[Prophet]

The logic that godnotgod is using says to metaphorically put a hole in your mind (or stop thinking) to make your mind stronger. It is pretty weak.