The Debate of God.

[beerisit]

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:

Ummmmm yeah that was my point, got one of your own?

 

[beerisit]

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'.

Well I must apologise, but I think you may need to define the nature of the universe, if you don't mean meaning? You are wrong in your assumption that scientists can know the composition of the sea by a single drop, I mean really. But then even if they could would that tell them the nature of the sea? Your suggestion is to abandon the horse and the cart altogether and rely on a Tardis.

 

[confused453]

apologies to beerisit. that wasn't meant for you.

 

[godnotgod]

OOOOOOH! Can't wait to address Profit the Moralist's juicy little post #1632, but no time right now. Let me just say for now that it is further confirmation of his condition as an 'Unenlightened Being', as well as how Reason has led him to erroneous conclusions, ala Jesus's words:

"There is a way which seems right to man, which ends in death"

 

[confused453]

Can't we still analyse the microscopic view of the universe, down to the last basic particle? Then we could create computer simulations on a large scale in any simulated environment. Wouldn't that tell us something about the universe, or even it's meaning (from dictionary: the nature, properties, or essential qualities)?

 

[godnotgod]

Well I must apologise, but I think you may need to define the nature of the universe, if you don't mean meaning? You are wrong in your assumption that scientists can know the composition of the sea by a single drop, I mean really. But then even if they could would that tell them the nature of the sea? Your suggestion is to abandon the horse and the cart altogether and rely on a Tardis.

I was using the idea of the drop of sea water in relation to the sea as a metaphor, not as a literal meaning, but no, you cannot understand the nature of reality via the rational mind, and to attempt an 'explanation' can only be in rational terms. The nature of reality can only be understood via the intuitive mind. For example, if I say that the nature of the phenomenal world is that it is illusory, that cannot be demonstrated via reason and logic. One has to SEE that it is illusory. One has to SEE into one's own nature to understand what it is. Seeing, without thought, is beyond logic and reason, or should I say, BEFORE logic and reason come into being. Seeing is possible with that state of consciousness prior to its forming any idea about what it sees. This state of consciousness is called Metaphysic (not metaphysics).

The rational mind cannot understand the nature of reality because it is constantly trying to 'figure it out', where there is nothing to figure out. To understand the nature of reality, one must simply see it as it actually is, with nothing in the way. But this involves a transformation of mind from one's ordinary conditioned view, to it's original, unconditioned state.

I look forward to addressing your other posts re: iPad later; no time right now, but thanks for your input. Good post.

PS: re: drop of sea water: I should have said 'chemical' compositon. Obviously, a drop of sea water cannot contain a whale.....or can it, LOL.?

(after all, how many hundreds of angels can dance on the head of a pin?)

 

[godnotgod]

Can't we still analyse the microscopic view of the universe, down to the last basic particle? Then we could create computer simulations on a large scale in any simulated environment. Wouldn't that tell us something about the universe, or even it's meaning (from dictionary: the nature, properties, or essential qualities)?

I suggest you return to post #1631 and watch the video there to get an idea of what the problem with scientific analysis is.

 

[beerisit]

I was using the idea of the drop of sea water in relation to the sea as a metaphor, not as a literal meaning, but no, you cannot understand the nature of reality via the rational mind, and to attempt an 'explanation' can only be in rational terms. The nature of reality can only be understood via the intuitive mind. For example, if I say that the nature of the phenomenal world is that it is illusory, that cannot be demonstrated via reason and logic. One has to SEE that it is illusory. One has to SEE into one's own nature to understand what it is. Seeing, without thought, is beyond logic and reason, or should I say, BEFORE logic and reason come into being. Seeing is possible with that state of consciousness prior to its forming any idea about what it sees. This state of consciousness is called Metaphysic (not metaphysics).

The rational mind cannot understand the nature of reality because it is constantly trying to 'figure it out', where there is nothing to figure out. To understand the nature of reality, one must simply see it as it actually is, with nothing in the way. But this involves a transformation of mind from one's ordinary conditioned view, to it's original, unconditioned state.

I look forward to addressing your other posts re: iPad later; no time right now, but thanks for your input. Good post.

PS: re: drop of sea water: I should have said 'chemical' compositon. Obviously, a drop of sea water cannot contain a whale.....or can it, LOL.?

(after all, how many hundreds of angels can dance on the head of a pin?)

What does this reality that you see within yourself SHOW you about dinosaurs or supernova's or bacteria. How does this reality of yours differ from the real world and which one are you betting on to be real? For instance in your reality, do you die? Or do you live forever?

 

[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."

When you are ready, you can get up and walk away from having your mind enslaved by those pesky cave wall shadows and come up top to have a peek at the glorious Sun. We'll keep the fire going and the dancing images alive just in case you want to return to your delusive, fear-driven mental state.

 

[godnotgod]

What does this reality that you see within yourself SHOW you about dinosaurs or supernova's or bacteria. How does this reality of yours differ from the real world and which one are you betting on to be real? For instance in your reality, do you die? Or do you live forever?

Who is it that lives? Who is it that dies?

 

[beerisit]

Who is it that lives? Who is it that dies?

I'll play your silly game, who?

 

[confused453]

On the other way, if one was to put its mind into a computer simulated planet world, where the outside of the planet is similar objects spread randomly, and it would feed that mind unimaginable quantity of space, with basic physical laws, and billions of galaxies etc.. We can analyse all we want but we'll never get the absolute truth in a way, unless there's some backdoor or something similar. Wouldn't the god be the admin or creator of the program and the sprites, but not the actual creator of the conciousness?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Yes you do. You claim that there is some level of reality beyond that which logic and reason tell us and that the only way to learn about this new level of reality is to use tools other than logic and reason.

But to think that logic and reason can be used to understand the NATURE of the universe is not possible.

Pray tell, how have you determined that there is a nature of the universe beyond that which science and logic and reason tells us?

The nature of the universe and its underlying reality lie beyond logic and reason.

Your repeated claims of this do not make it true. Prove that this is true before you do anything else.

A view which TRANSCENDS logic and reason is needed.

Once you have proved that some nature of the universe underneath science exists, please prove that such a nature will be forever hidden from reason and logic.

It is this other view which then shows us how to use logic and reason correctly.

How have you determined this?

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.

Another claim with nothing to convince me that it is true.

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.

This is just wrong, as I have explained many times.

A drop is the same as the sea because they are both collections of H2O molecules. There is nothing found in one that is not found in the other. People are not the same as the universe because there are many things found in the universe that are not found in people, such as stars.

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.

Logic and reason have no place in the external world? I'm sorry! I thought you said you'd NEVER encourage the dismissal o logic and reason, and yet here you are saying outright that they have no place in the inner or outer world!

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?

I will happily accept the mystical view, once evidence to support it is presented.

 

[godnotgod]

What does this reality that you see within yourself SHOW you about dinosaurs or supernova's or bacteria.

What does the theory of a singularity responsible for the Big Bang suggest to you about dinosaurs, supernova, bacteria and all the rest of it?

 

[godnotgod]

I'll play your silly game, who?

What 'silly game' are you referring to? YOU are the one who asked about life and death. All I am asking you is who is it to whom you refer that lives and dies?

That is to say: is there an entity known as the self that lives and dies, and if there is, who, or what, is that?

 

[beerisit]

What 'silly game' are you referring to? YOU are the one who asked about life and death. All I am asking you is who is it to whom you refer that lives and dies?

That is to say: is there an entity known as the self that lives and dies, and if there is, who, or what, is that?

Yes that was the point of my response..................tell me.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes that was the point of my response..................tell me.

Here is your original post:

Originally Posted by beerisit ..... in your reality, do you die? Or do you live forever?

In order for me to answer your question, I need to know what you mean by 'you'. Who, or what, do you mean by a 'you' that can live or die?

 

[confused453]

So how much of the supernatural stuff from the bible or any other religion can be demonstrated in a room, a place or a lab? If none, would that be enough to disprove all religions?

 

[beerisit]

Here is your original post:



In order for me to answer your question, I need to know what you mean by 'you'. Who, or what, do you mean by a 'you' that can live or die?

Well I guess that would be you. Unless of course you are not you, in which case I would be asking the you who is not you. On the other hand, if you are you and pretending to be not you but a different you, then I would be referring to the you that you are. It really is a bloody simple question. Now then I admit that for someone who is unaware of who he is or even if he is, it probably gets confusing. Still, if you ask the teachers aid she may be able to help you.

 

[godnotgod]

So how much of the supernatural stuff from the bible or any other religion can be demonstrated in a room, a place or a lab? If none, would that be enough to disprove all religions?

No, it would not. It only proves that what religions claim cannot be proven/disproven via certain methods.

If you were one of the prisoners in Plato's Cave, and were told about a Sun that existed outside the cave, you would say: "No such Sun exists, because the true reality that are the shadows on the wall proves it does not exist." To prove or disprove the Sun's existence, you would necessarily need to leave your shadows behind and go see for yourself.