The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Hi cottage:

...you'll accept logic when it demonstrates your ends....

...which I, too, have noticed about cottage. Unfortunately, one of the defects of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. He, just like the fundies, is guilty of bending Truth to fit his [Rational] teeth. Both are blind to their own faulty machinations, their system of belief or logic itself reinforcing the idea that theirs is an infallible system of thought.

Fawlty Towers, LOL

 

[godnotgod]

Hi cottage:

I read the extraordinarily well thought out responses to godnotgod and can hardly believe that they are from the same person who posted this mind dump of feigned certainty to me:



It seems that, like the religious fundies you like to rag on, you'll accept logic when it demonstrates your ends, but, on this occasion, where logic did not suit your needs you posted a long string of non-sequitur, purposefully seeing my arguments in the least charitable light possible to defeat a weakened straw man.

When understanding did not suit your aims you chose against it, too. Just like any religious fundamentalist. It would be quite an advance in understanding to realize that this manner of insane thinking goes quite beyond the bounds of religion.

:biglaugh: ...in which Profit gets a taste of his own medicine, [based on Reason, of course!]LOL!

 

[godnotgod]

Your argument is that contingent existence is illusory, and you’ve stated that ‘the universe is showing you what the true nature of reality is.’ I’ve pointed out to you that as the Universe is the sum total of contingency your ‘true reality’ must also be an illusion. By your very own words you annul your argument.

From which vantage point or position are you stating that 'as the Universe is the sum total of contingency your ‘true reality’ must also be an illusion'? That is to say, how do you determine that something is contingent or illusory?

 

[godnotgod]

Beliefs and experience are not necessarily the same species. There is nothing true of experience, whereas beliefs may be false or they may be certain and true. Anything in experience that is distinctly conceivable can be denied, whereas for example 0=0 is a belief that is true.

You have consistently referred to the 'mystical view' that I refer to, namely that of the Absolute, as being a mere belief, in the same vein as religious beliefs. Now it appears that you make a distinction between the two.

As for 'nothing being true of experience', my question here is: are you referring specifically to sensory experience?

The irony is that your own words testify that there is no seeing without thought. Something is seen, and there is a thought, although the thinking doesn’t have to be concurrent with the seeing. In fact nothing about your argument makes the least sense without the incorporation of thought and beliefs, which is to confirm the presence of the conscious mind.

For 'mind' to be present, it must self-create in order to exist from one moment to the next. If it is not self-created, then it must be 'other'-created.

What I am saying is that seeing is understanding, without having to think about it. Again, this is what is called metaphysic, a consciousness which is not trying to define or grasp what it already knows.

Now, if, as you say, 'thinking doesn’t have to be concurrent with the seeing', what you are actually saying is that seeing can indeed occur independent of thought, at least at some point, and that point would be prior to thought, since the thought is about what one sees. So if there is a point at which there is no thought, then at that point there is also no mind, since, according to what you just said, 'the incorporation of thought and beliefs... is to confirm the presence of the conscious mind.' Therefore, mind is dependent upon the thought-idea of mind, meaning that it is a self-created principle.

 

[godnotgod]

Do please re-post your piece on the Resurrection and I promise I will give you my critique by return.

Here it is:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2-what-real-evidence-exists-resurrection.html

Originally Posted by cottage

In the late nineteenth century a certain Dr Greenleaf published a paper in which he sought to establish the truth of the Resurrection by the application of Municipal Law (Testimonies of the Evangelists). I had great fun in picking that testimony based argument to pieces and would dearly love the opportunity to do the same with your particular mystical claim from (popular?) belief.*

Are you going to address this post?:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Except for one small detail: The Resurrection is considered a singular, unique, and factual, historical, as well as a miraculous event.... But the mystical experience is non-historical. It does not live in the past, but in the Present Moment, where there is no history, no memory, no birth, no death, no causation, no beginning and no end. It is always present, always available to anyone who wishes to access its power....

*re: 'popular belief': you continue to refer to the mystical view as 'popular belief', when it is the mystical view that specifically transcends all popular views. All I can assume from your persistence is that you are committed to discrediting the mystical view, in spite of the fact that you obviously have never had the experience, by including it with fallacy, which, btw, is fallacy because it can be disproven via logical means and/or hard evidence. The mystical view, however, and as I repeatedly have stated, cannot be confirmed via hard evidence, but its proponents do tell us that it's validity can be confirmed via direct experience. Now, before you get on your 'nothing is true of experience' horse, the direct experience of the mystical view is not via sensory experience, which, as we all know, can be faulty, and is precisely why the mystic always transcends the sensory world as well as the rational mind, so belief is not one of its features. Mystics are already well aware of the pitfalls of belief.

 

[Prophet]

The more sour grapes you suck on, the stronger you look.

Everyone here is easily exposing you as a fraud. Deal with it like a man.

 

[Prophet]

...which I, too, have noticed about cottage. Unfortunately, one of the defects of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. He, just like the fundies, is guilty of bending Truth to fit his [Rational] teeth. Both are blind to their own faulty machinations, their system of belief or logic itself reinforcing the idea that theirs is an infallible system of thought.

Fawlty Towers, LOL

And when reason goes against your argument, you use your powerful religious hot air blower to "explain" why reason doesn't matter this time.

I point out his doing this as an isolated incident which he should answer for, only because he is making points about you that can used against himself back when he gave a try at debating me.

Cottage mostly avoids (and denigrates) such practices in his dealings here. I can't say the same for you.

 

[godnotgod]

The more sour grapes you suck on, the stronger you look.

The more you open your mouth, the less and less you look like an 'Enlightened Being'.

Everyone here is easily exposing you as a fraud. Deal with it like a man.

That is what you like to think, because you are taken in by their erroneous logic. One more reason I do not believe what you advertise yourself as. 'Enlightened Being' my asss!

You have not answered my question: What does your 'enlightenment' via Reason have to say about the nature of reality?

You invite others to ask you questions, but when they do, you create a diversion and dismissal. If you cannot answer the question, just say so.

You have yet to produce the 'doctrine' you claim I am peddling, and brainwashing others with.

You don't seem to know much of anything, do you? You just seem to float around on your self-manufactured credentials and plant derogatory labels on those who don't agree with you, without having to stand behind your words.

Fraud!:bow:

 

[godnotgod]

And when reason goes against your argument, you use your powerful religious hot air blower to "explain" why reason doesn't matter this time.

I continue to state that I have no religious doctrine to peddle, which you deliberately ignore, choosing instead to respond by claiming that I blow religious hot air, but every time I hold your feet to the fire and ask you to produce the doctrine in question, you just keep blowing and blowing and blowing.

Liar!

I point out his doing this as an isolated incident which he should answer for, only because he is making points about you that can used against himself back when he gave a try at debating me.

Cottage mostly avoids (and denigrates) such practices in his dealings here. I can't say the same for you.

Pot, meet Kettle. Have another taste of your own medicine. LOL.

 

[godnotgod]

Reason and Knowledge have always played a secondary, subordinate, auxiliary role in the life of peoples, and this will always be the case. A people is shaped and driven forward by an entirely different kind of force, one which commands and coerces them and the origin of which is obscure and inexplicable despite the reality of its presence.

Fyodor Dostoyevski

 

[godnotgod]

Now tell me what ‘other views’ I’m to ‘acknowledge’: bald assertions perhaps? You seem to forget that it is the authenticity of the ‘views’ that I’m challenging.

You make this statement as if you are required to acknowledge another view. That is very clever of you, because it carries with it the implication that I am espousing some dogma, but to date, you have not come forth with the doctrine you claim I am foisting on you, and which Profit claims I am brainwashing others with. You present yourself as a scholar using Logic and Reason to make your points, but you slant things to make them fit your argument. You cannot challenge the authenticity of a view that goes beyond Logic and Reason until you abandon these methods yourself and go see for yourself. You're just poking around at thin air, shadow boxing, as it were.

Your particular belief system cannot be ‘valid’ when everything about it consists as a special plea.

There is no belief system involved. Once again, come forth and present this belief system you allude to. The mystical view is one which mirrors nature, without any beliefs in between. Your system puts Logic and Reason in the way. If there is any pleading in my argument, it is only that you go and see for yourself, without the baggage of your Logic and Reason. Don't worry. It will still be there when you return.

And please explain to us what these ‘certain limits’ are that you apply to logic? This cherry picking only goes to show that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of the dogma. Once again this has religious similarities, where logic is acceptable and is even used to demonstrate a favoured argument but rejected when it confounds or contradicts the beliefs.

Logic and Reason are constructs which condition the mind to see things in a particular way. Seeing into the nature of reality directly is an unconditioned view. Logic and Reason assume that one must acquire facts and knowledge through learning first as a means of 'understanding' the natural world. It overlays a grid pattern onto reality instead of seeing reality as it actually is; concept does not match up with reality. That is why science is currently having difficulty understanding Quantum Mechanics and why Physics is having a nervous breakdown: science is reaching the limits of its methodologies, where there are huge discrepancies between the actual behavior of the universe and what science expects. The mystery of the universe remains as impenetrable as ever. Maybe even moreso than before.

Here, check out this video, as an example: (just know that I do take issue with the title):

[youtube]tH5xYvUsd8o[/youtube]
Science v's God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube.flv - YouTube

And, with respect, it is you who are indoctrinated and obsessed.

Indoctrinated and obsessed with what? All I have been saying, cottage, is that what we have been conditioned with since childhood to understand as reality is not the case, and that a different view is needed. This different view is doctrineless, so there is nothing to obsess about. The discrepancies between knowledge and reality are now coming to light as classic science is no longer equipped to understand the latest discoveries.

Anything I say may be wrong and my statements are subject to being proved false. Unlike you, I am making no claims about the Universe, other than to say that it simply needn’t be, whereas you cannot concede even the idea of error in what you claim. And that’s a pretty superior attitude to take when you cannot know for certain that everything you supposedly ‘see’ is not imagined or delusional.

There are only two conditions with regard to understanding reality: you see it as it is, or you see it as something else. You and I seem to agree that the phenomenal world is illusory. What we do not agree upon is why and how we see it that way. To see reality as it is does not entail a superior, nor an inferior attitude; it is merely to see it as it is, period. There is no error in that. Does your intellect allow that a view free of error is possible?

Your claim that the universe 'need'nt be', that it is contingent, is a false one. The universe is neither necessary, nor unnecessary. It is One, and being One, it is non-dual. 'Necessary' and 'unnecessary' constitutes a dual view, which does not apply. The universe simply is. What it's nature is, is the question.

 

[Prophet]

You make this statement as if you are required to acknowledge another view. That is very clever of you, because it carries with it the implication that I am espousing some dogma, but to date, you have not come forth with the doctrine you claim I am foisting on you, and which Profit claims I am brainwashing others with. You present yourself as a scholar using Logic and Reason to make your points, but you slant things to make them fit your argument. You cannot challenge the authenticity of a view that goes beyond Logic and Reason until you abandon these methods yourself and go see for yourself. You're just poking around at thin air, shadow boxing, as it were.

I think everybody is well beyond attempts to point out your dogma to you because your denial would be forthcoming and predictable, and even if we took the time to make the most bulletproof argument possible, you have the failsafe of ignoring or, haha, transcending reason when it suits you.

There is no belief system involved. Once again, come forth and present this belief system you allude to. The mystical view is one which mirrors nature, without any beliefs in between. Your system puts Logic and Reason in the way. If there is any pleading in my argument, it is only that you go and see for yourself, without the baggage of your Logic and Reason. Don't worry. It will still be there when you return.

Seeing for ourselves would be fine if it did not involve brainwashing ourselves into ignoring reason when convenient to this new enhanced worldview you present.

This is not seeing at all. What you actually say is "blind yourself and then things will be better afterwards" which reduces to, "Ignorance is bliss."

Logic and Reason are constructs which condition the mind to see things in a particular way. Seeing into the nature of reality directly is an unconditioned view. Logic and Reason assume that one must acquire facts and knowledge through learning first as a means of 'understanding' the natural world. It overlays a grid pattern onto reality instead of seeing reality as it actually is; concept does not match up with reality. That is why science is currently having difficulty understanding Quantum Mechanics and why Physics is having a nervous breakdown: science is reaching the limits of its methodologies, where there are huge discrepancies between the actual behavior of the universe and what science expects. The mystery of the universe remains as impenetrable as ever. Maybe even moreso than before.

Ego is the mind-shaping construct to blame for a being's inability to use reason properly. To blame the egoic misuses of reason upon reason itself is akin to blaming the weapons used to commit atrocities over those who issued the orders or used the weapons.

Jesus had special harsh words for hypocrite teachers of the law who had no understanding of God, yet pretended as if they did:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

To paraphrase the great teacher Jesus, I would say: If one is a fool who believes that the goal of life is attained by adherence to lists of rules written by men, and failure to adhere to these lists of rules buys eternal damnation, it makes perfect logical sense to dismember from himself any physical body part which could be used to break adherence. So go ahead start cutting!

I will expand upon Jesus' sarcasm and say that if one is a fool who believes that the goal of life is attained by agreement to any worldview without the impedance of reason breaking the harmony, by all means, lobotomize yourself!

The rest of your post to cottage doesn't interest me.

 

[Tiberius]

I have yet to see any valid reason to dismiss logic and reason when they have proven to be excellent tools for learning about the universe...

 

[Prophet]

I have yet to see any valid reason to dismiss logic and reason when they have proven to be excellent tools for learning about the universe...

To this, his response is that we are reaching the boundaries of what reason is capable of, so throw away logic and just let him speak beliefs into your mind without trying to understand the beliefs he's saying because of some doublespeak that plainly reduces to, "I get to ignore reason when it disagrees with me."

He's an Eastern fundy. Words are different, but the tactics are the same.

 

[confused453]

I think that god does not exist. But god could exist in some form. Suppose we create an extremely intelligent computer, name it god, and program it to be as god as humanly possible. It will take care of humanity, and it will expand its networks across planets, then eventually galaxy, and beyond, be it a billion years or more. Now suppose some alien race(s) did this already, say a billion years ago, then it's possible that this computer already played a part with humanity.... We can make stuff up or make theories, but it just doesn't make sense to pray, force or kill in the name of this very-unlikely but possible god, because humanity as a whole, doesn't have an absolutely certain contact with computer/god, but does have a huge imagination. I think that god was invented by the rich people such as kings to control the population by fear. I strongly believe that the only future for humanity should be science and education. And I sincerely hope that Humanism takes over religion asap

 

[godnotgod]

I have yet to see any valid reason to dismiss logic and reason when they have proven to be excellent tools for learning about the universe...

How I wish that you would pay attention to what I have been saying.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that these tools are very useful in learning ABOUT the universe, as well as their application in medicine and other areas important to human welfare. I have told you this repeatedly. You act as if I deny it, KNOWING I do not. I NEVER said to dismiss logic and reason wholesale! So stop putting words in my mouth, OK? It is quite obvious that I myself use these tools on a daily basis right here on these forums to make my points. But to think that logic and reason can be used to understand the NATURE of the universe is not possible. The nature of the universe and its underlying reality lie beyond logic and reason. A view which TRANSCENDS logic and reason is needed. It is this other view which then shows us how to use logic and reason correctly. By pursuing logic and reason over the intuitive mind, we have essentially placed the cart ahead of the horse, in the same way that religion has placed a god above nature.

Not only are they proving to be limited and even useless in their application to any real 'understanding' of the universe, as the last video I posted demonstrates by THE physicist who is the author of string theory, Dr. Kaku, who has spent a lifetime devoting himself to Einstein's work, and as Quantum Physics has also shown, as it has created more perplexities than it has solved, but they are intrinsically faulty when it comes to what the universe itself teaches us directly. That is to say that the universe is an INTELLIGENT entity, something logic and reason do not conclude. Even Dr. Kaku, who uses both of these tools constantly, concludes that 'nature is smarter than we are'.

The very first step that the mind takes in the use of logic and reason is to dissect reality into 'things' and 'parts', when reality is not comprised of them, as it is singular and undivided. In fact, the very first thing we assume is that we ourselves are separate entities in objective observation of the universe as a thing itself, when, in fact, we are 100% integral to the universe. As a drop of water is 100% the same substance as the vast sea, so are we in relation to the universe. So if we want to understand the true nature of the universe, it makes logical and rational sense to look inward to our own nature, as it is exactly the same as that of reality. Logic and reason have no place in the inner world, as they have no place in the external world, in terms of real understanding. They can lead us to knowledge, but not to knowing.

BTW, Tiberius, have you taken note that I accept both the scientific and the mystical views, while you can only accept the scientific? So much for a 'free and open mind' brought about via 'reason', eh, lol?

 

[beerisit]

How I wish that you would pay attention to what I have been saying.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that these tools are very useful in learning ABOUT the universe, as well as their application in medicine and other areas important to human welfare. I have told you this repeatedly. You act as if I deny it, KNOWING I do not. I NEVER said to dismiss logic and reason wholesale! So stop putting words in my mouth, OK? It is quite obvious that I myself use these tools on a daily basis right here on these forums to make my points. But to think that logic and reason can be used to understand the NATURE of the universe is not possible. The nature of the universe and its underlying reality lie beyond logic and reason. A view which TRANSCENDS logic and reason is needed. It is this other view which then shows us how to use logic and reason correctly. By pursuing logic and reason over the intuitive mind, we have essentially placed the cart ahead of the horse, in the same way that religion has placed a god above nature.

Not only are they proving to be limited and even useless in their application to any real 'understanding' of the universe, as the last video I posted demonstrates by THE physicist who is the author of string theory, Dr. Kaku, who has spent a lifetime devoting himself to Einstein's work, and as Quantum Physics has also shown, as it has created more perplexities than it has solved, but they are intrinsically faulty when it comes to what the universe itself teaches us directly. That is to say that the universe is an INTELLIGENT entity, something logic and reason do not conclude. Even Dr. Kaku, who uses both of these tools constantly, concludes that 'nature is smarter than we are'.

The very first step that the mind takes in the use of logic and reason is to dissect reality into 'things' and 'parts', when reality is not comprised of them, as it is singular and undivided. In fact, the very first thing we assume is that we ourselves are separate entities in objective observation of the universe as a thing itself, when, in fact, we are 100% integral to the universe. As a drop of water is 100% the same substance as the vast sea, so are we in relation to the universe. So if we want to understand the true nature of the universe, it makes logical and rational sense to look inward to our own nature, as it is exactly the same as that of reality. Logic and reason have no place in the inner world, as they have no place in the external world, in terms of real understanding. They can lead us to knowledge, but not to knowing.

BTW, Tiberius, have you taken note that I accept both the scientific and the mystical views, while you can only accept the scientific? So much for a 'free and open mind' brought about via 'reason', eh, lol?

Are you claiming that you or anybody else has the capacity to understand the nature of the universe? Perhaps you might first inform us of the extent and complexity of the universe, before you attempt to understand it's meaning?

 

[godnotgod]

To this, his response is that we are reaching the boundaries of what reason is capable of, so throw away logic and just let him speak beliefs into your mind without trying to understand the beliefs he's saying because of some doublespeak that plainly reduces to, "I get to ignore reason when it disagrees with me."

He's an Eastern fundy. Words are different, but the tactics are the same.

Heh....heh...heh....come to granpa, little ones, and let me fill your innocent little minds with my irresistable and delectable bon bons.

OOOOPS! MY BAD...FORGIVE ME!..HEH...HEH...HEH...:run:

 

[confused453]

beerisit. If you show an iPad to a person who was born outside of civilization in some undiscovered remote village. Would that person need "a view which TRANSCENDS logic and reason" to understand how the iPad functions inside out? Just because something is unknown to us yet, doesn't mean it's mystical or supernatural. We just need to keep learning, and good teachers too. :bow:

 

[godnotgod]

Are you claiming that you or anybody else has the capacity to understand the nature of the universe? Perhaps you might first inform us of the extent and complexity of the universe, before you attempt to understand it's meaning?

Who said anything about it's MEANING?

The complexity of the universe has to do with its superficial outward appearance; its manifestation as infinite variety. That is only form and function, which science studies. The true nature of the universe is what underlies its appearance, and that nature is singular. As we are 100% the same nature as the universe, we can understand it's true nature by understanding our own, in the same way that science can know what the composition of the sea is by knowing the composition of a single drop of sea water.

Your suggestion is to place the cart ahead of the horse, by going after the details first to know the source of the details. You will only end up with more details. Go to the root to know the flower, not the other way around.

As for 'meaning', we already have the 'sound and the fury, signifying nothing'.