The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

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.

None of that tells me what 'you' actually is. All you are really saying here is that 'you' is 'you', which says nothing. 'You' refers to a self, and a self is thought of as a definable entity. Show me the definable entity you call 'you'. For example, does it have a definable border and shape? I ask because you asked whether it lives or dies, and for something to live or die means that there is something there to do so. If it turns out that there is no such entity, then perhaps there is only living and dying, without an entity that does so.

Do you understand?

 

[confused453]

Plato's Cave sounds like torture and mind manipulation.

We have plenty of information about the Marvel universe, thousands of super hero stories with pictures, and lots of information on mutant powers and stuff like that. Would one be able to argue in 2000 years that everything in Marvel universe is true because so much information is available? Can this be said about the bible?

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.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

What 'new level of reality' are you talking about? There is nothing new or old about it. It has always existed outside of Time, Space, and Causation. Sages have told us about it since Day One. There is only one reality, and this is it.

No, logic and reason cannot tell you about the nature of reality; all they can do is to tell you about its characteristics and behavior and predict its behavior.

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 very fact that it appears as phenomena means it has a nature. Of necessity, it's nature must be, for example, real or illusory, manifested or created, etc., even though we do not know how to ascertain it's nature via science, logic, or reason. In fact, science does not even address the question because it assumes it to be real from the beginning. It assumes creation from the beginning.

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

We know that we can prove that an image of water is a mirage or not. But if the phenomenal world that we call 'real' is on a higher level of illusion, ordinary logic and reason cannot determine that, since logic and reason operate on this level, and not on a higher plane. Science just assumes that, no matter how unbelievable something may seem, it MUST have a rational explanation. That may not necessarily be true, and, in fact, has not been shown to be true so far in the history of science; we are just led on to even more mysteries. All that science has come up with to date are the mechanics of the phenomenal world. Mechanics and nature are two very different things. The problem is that science is not asking questions that would lead it to what the nature of reality is. That is not within its methodologies, which are reason and logic.

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 not underneath science. Science is underneath it, because science is still within the sphere of sensory awareness, which is connected to illusion. As long as you are immersed within the illusion itself, you cannot know it to be an illusion, because the level of the illusion is such that it is beyond detection via ordinary, conditioned consciousness. You have to view the phenomenal world from a higher vantage point, that which is responsible for the illusion to begin with.

How have you determined this?

Because it is the source of the phenomenal world that logic and reason attempt to explain.

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

It is true because your intuitive mind is already in place prior to your using your logical, rational mind. It's just that you have, through years of social indoctrination and condtioning, ignored and forgotten the presence of your intuitive mind, relegating it to the back burner, so to speak, and giving prominence to your thinking mind, which tells you it is the only game in town. All you have to do is to take the time to re-discover your original mind to see that it is still there, fully intact, and ready to teach you what your thinking mind cannot possibly do. But first, the monkey-chatter of the thinking mind must be quieted down, so that Big Mind can come into play. You see, the nature of Big Mind is that it is non-aggressive, and does not impose itself like monkey mind does. So you will never know about it, or rather, remember it, until you get a handle on monkey mind.

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.

You have misunderstood my answer. It was a metaphor. What I was referring to in comparing human nature to universal nature is that they are one and the same, in the same manner that a drop of sea water is the same chemical composition as that of the sea from which it came, NOT that humans are necessarily the same PHYSICAL composition as the universe, though there are references to that as being true nonetheless.

At any rate, YOU are an outgrowth of the universe in the same manner as an orange is an outgrowth of an orange tree. The Big Bang is still an ongoing event, and YOU are part of it, deny it though you may, which would be like an ocean wave suddenly declaring its independence from the ocean.

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!

Re-read, please: I said: "They can lead us to knowledge, but not to knowing."

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

YOU are the evidence of its presence! YOU are the universe looking at itself through YOUR eyes, PRETENDING that you are some 'other' you have named 'Tiberius', and playing the supreme cosmic game of Hide and Seek. My, my, aren't we clever today? Kudos to you and your poker-faced performance, but I'm on to you, dahling, ha ha ha....

 

[confused453]

I watched the video, and I don't see any problem. So what if the scientists don't understand the singularity/black holes. It's not like they say god did it. They are working on the problem, and somebody will eventually going to solve it, bringing new technologies, hopefully for good purposes.

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

 

[godnotgod]

Plato's Cave sounds like torture and mind manipulation.

Welcome to Earth, the Plato's Cave of the Universe, wherein we all are tortured and manipulated by illusion, on a troubled voyage in perfectly calm weather.

We have plenty of information about the Marvel universe, thousands of super hero stories with pictures, and lots of information on mutant powers and stuff like that. Would one be able to argue in 2000 years that everything in Marvel universe is true because so much information is available? Can this be said about the bible?

Our current reality is the aftermath of both illusions. When we awaken to true reality, we will see that it is far superior to either.

 

[godnotgod]

I watched the video, and I don't see any problem. So what if the scientists don't understand the singularity/black holes. It's not like they say god did it. They are working on the problem, and somebody will eventually going to solve it, bringing new technologies, hopefully for good purposes.

I don't think you understand what the message of the video is. Physics can go no further via mathematics as proof, since the equations no longer make any sense, at least not to the mind of science. Something beyond science is necessary for understanding. You're just reflecting a kind of propaganda type thinking that science has sold most of us on.

 

[confused453]

But you're preaching delusion, not illusion. Somebody eventually is going to step up with new math, just like Einstein did, and people after him. If it wasn't for religion holding the science back in the past, we could have been 100s of years ahead. So I don't buy your claims.

:sorry1: to disappoint you.

I don't think you understand what the message of the video is. Physics can go no further via mathematics as proof, since the equations no longer make any sense, at least not to the mind of science. Something beyond science is necessary for understanding. You're just reflecting a kind of propaganda type thinking that science has sold most of us on.

 

[godnotgod]

But you're preaching delusion, not illusion. Somebody eventually is going to step up with new math, just like Einstein did, and people after him. If it wasn't for religion holding the science back in the past, we could have been 100s of years ahead. So I don't buy your claims.

:sorry1: to disappoint you.

I'm not disappointed. That is not the issue.

What 'delusion' is it that I am 'preaching'? I don't recall presenting any particular doctrine, viewpoint, or theory that you can label as 'delusion', have I?

Science has had no restrictions in recent years that can be said to have held it back. It has enjoyed a relatively happy existence in the post-modern world. What I am 'claiming' is not a fantasy that is debatable. Science is running into roadblocks both as a result of Quantum Mechanics, which has turned classic science on its head, as well as developments as demonstrated in the video by Dr. Kaku. All of these developments point to the limits of the rational mind and the fact that science is not integrated with human nature, as, for example, Zen Buddhism is. Both science and religion preach a system of thought over and above nature. But what good is a science that is continually discovered only to be discarded by the next 'discovery'? When will we arrive at something we can call reliable knowledge? Zen and other mystical views show us the nature of reality as it already is, and that nature does not change. It is the same thousands of years ago as it is today, because the nature of reality and the universe does not change.

Your suggestion that there will be new math and new science is pure conjecture at this point, no better than delusion or illusion. I cannot live life according to what might be, but what is, and unfortunately, science cannot tell me what is; it can only tell me about its color, shape, behavior, and other superficial characteristics. I want to know what the true nature of existence is all about. That is happiness.

 

[confused453]

Didn't you say that "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."

Logic:
The quality of being justifiable by reason.

Reason:
A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.
A premise of an argument in support of a belief, esp. a minor premise when given after the conclusion.
One's sanity.

So does it mean that logic can be false, if the reasons are not valid?
There's only logic, so I think that "A view which TRANSCENDS logic and reason" is delusion. But I'd like more feedback on this, in case my thiking is flawed.

It's like some people are saying that something cannot come from nothing. But there's no so such physical state as nothing, because it cannot be experienced or demonstrated. Or claims like 'outside of space and time', because again, nobodys been there.



Quote:
What 'delusion' is it that I am 'preaching'? I don't recall presenting any particular doctrine, viewpoint, or theory that you can label as 'delusion', have I?

 

[godnotgod]

Didn't you say that "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."

Logic:
The quality of being justifiable by reason.

Reason:
A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.
A premise of an argument in support of a belief, esp. a minor premise when given after the conclusion.
One's sanity.

So does it mean that logic can be false, if the reasons are not valid?
There's only logic, so I think that "A view which TRANSCENDS logic and reason" is delusion. But I'd like more feedback on this, in case my thiking is flawed.

It's like some people are saying that something cannot come from nothing. But there's no so such physical state as nothing, because it cannot be experienced or demonstrated. Or claims like 'outside of space and time', because again, nobodys been there.

Just because something is transcendent of reason, does not mean it is irrational or delusive; it is simply non-rational in nature. It is an approach to reality that does not involve the thinking mind, which is what logic and reason depend upon in order to operate. Without them in the way, a different consciousness comes into play, that brought on by the intuitive mind, which SEES directly into the nature of reality, rather than merely forms concepts ABOUT what it MIGHT be, based on certain presumptions. The intuitive view is non-conditioned; it just sees what is already there; that of the rational mind is a conditioned view, and therefore, a very structured, controlled view. It is the view of reality through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation, and as such, is a distorted view.

Something cannot come from nothing, but that assumes that the universe is real. If it is not real, that is, if it is an illusion, then it is not a created 'something', but rather, a manifestation; a projection from some other source that we call The Infinite, or The Absolute, which is True Reality, in which case the illusion we call 'the universe' can indeed come from no-thing, because it itself is no-thing.

You are living in the illusion of Space, Time, and Causation, thinking them to be real, so yes, you have been outside of Time and Space; in fact, you have never left. It's like a fish born into the sea; it never noticed the sea both inside and outside the fish. Due to your social indoctrination, you never noticed No-thing, because you have been taught to focus on some-thing, that is, the foreground to existence, and ignore the background. The foreground cannot exist without the background, as in:

You cannot have a pot without the empty space within.

You cannot have a universe that contains planets, stars, and other objects without the empty space in between.

You cannot have some-thing without no-thing.

Every-thing comes out of no-thing. In fact, there is no such thing as a 'thing', since no things can exist independently of everything else. 'Every-thing' is none other than One, which is no-thing.

 

[confused453]

I'm not disappointed. That is not the issue.

What 'delusion' is it that I am 'preaching'? I don't recall presenting any particular doctrine, viewpoint, or theory that you can label as 'delusion', have I?

What I am 'claiming' is not a fantasy that is debatable. Science is running into roadblocks both as a result of Quantum Mechanics, which has turned classic science on its head, as well as developments as demonstrated in the video by Dr. Kaku.

The video says that math doesn't work inside the black hole. So more learning is needed, which is why education is extremely important.

Religion preaches fiction, and science looks for a proof based on real evidence. The problem with religion is that it's stuck at some idea forever. But with science everything is revised when a fault is found, which creates a better understanding of the world, and brings the progress and technology forward. If you find a fault with religion, you'll be called an infidel, and just get thrown to jail, or worse.

We might or might not arrive at something called reliable knowledge if the universe itself is evolving for example, which might be true or not, I just don't know, but I intend to find out.

A microprocessor is mystical to most people, but it doesn't mean it has some supernatural/mystical magic. Usually religious people views of reality is false, because they give in too much to imagination, and on top of that being manipulated by fear..

Nature is constantly changes. Just look at the extinct species like dinosaurs. Do you think earth had oxygen breathing life forms forever? You should look it up online.

You don't need to live a life according to what might be, but you can live a life according to reality based truth, and not based on something that makes you feel happy.

 

[confused453]

Whether you like it or not, the universe and humans are stuck in this "glass of Time, Space, and Causation". And unless you can show us that there's something beyond it, you are just making stuff up, based on what you feel like truth.

Can you demonstrate on how to access that "different consciousness"?

How can you assume that the universe is not real, when you yourself live in it? Unless you can demonstrate how to exit this universe, non other universes exist except the ones in our imagination.

A pot doesn't have an empty space within. It contains collection of gasses that are part of earth's atmosphere. Even if you bring it to space, there're still particles like dust.

You've lost me at the last paragraph. :bow:

Just because something is transcendent of reason, does not mean it is irrational or delusive; it is simply non-rational in nature. It is an approach to reality that does not involve the thinking mind, which is what logic and reason depend upon in order to operate. Without them in the way, a different consciousness comes into play, that brought on by the intuitive mind, which SEES directly into the nature of reality, rather than merely forms concepts ABOUT what it MIGHT be, based on certain presumptions. The intuitive view is non-conditioned; it just sees what is already there; that of the rational mind is a conditioned view, and therefore, a very structured, controlled view. It is the view of reality through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation, and as such, is a distorted view.

Something cannot come from nothing, but that assumes that the universe is real. If it is not real, that is, if it is an illusion, then it is not a created 'something', but rather, a manifestation; a projection from some other source that we call The Infinite, or The Absolute, which is True Reality, in which case the illusion we call 'the universe' can indeed come from no-thing, because it itself is no-thing.

You are living in the illusion of Space, Time, and Causation, thinking them to be real, so yes, you have been outside of Time and Space; in fact, you have never left. It's like a fish born into the sea; it never noticed the sea both inside and outside the fish. Due to your social indoctrination, you never noticed No-thing, because you have been taught to focus on some-thing, that is, the foreground to existence, and ignore the background. The foreground cannot exist without the background, as in:

You cannot have a pot without the empty space within.

You cannot have a universe that contains planets, stars, and other objects without the empty space in between.

You cannot have some-thing without no-thing.

Every-thing comes out of no-thing. In fact, there is no such thing as a 'thing', since no things can exist independently of everything else. 'Every-thing' is none other than One, which is no-thing.

 

[cottage]

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.

Hello Prophet
The first thing to note here is that you are not actually saying anything at all. I can’t for the life of me see why you appear to be complaining in such an aggrieved fashion?
I gave you a logical argument, which is entirely consistent with every other post that I’ve made in this discussion. Just look at my very first sentence in the quoted piece:
“The instant we presume a self or ego do we confirm that it is necessarily selfish.”
And the second sentence:
So if there is a Self it cannot be 'selflessness', since the self is logically prior to any act, thought or conception.
If you’ve been following the discussion here you would know that I reject the concept of the Self, because it is faulty in all respects. There is no identifiable Self, but if there were then by definition the concept must be logically prior to any act or thought.
In the same way I can reject the existence of God on logical grounds while saying what is necessary for God to be logically possible.

 

[cottage]

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?

It’s very simple. The Universe is contingent‘, ie it is both temporal and has no logically necessary existence. Therefore I’m saying if you argue that the universe is ‘showing what the true nature of reality is’, ie that contingent existence is illusory, then it follows that everything must be illusory, including whatever it is that the Universe is showing us, since it too is contingent! Hence the argument reduces to an absurdity. But if that doesn’t make sense to you I can lay it out more formally.

 

[cottage]

...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

Having made those remarks, I would be grateful if you’d post the particular instances they refer to so that I can respond to them.
And I’m sorry but I rather think it is a bit rich of you to speak of me ‘bending the truth’ when you are unable or unwilling to even acknowledge any criterion of truth, but instead continually utter unfounded assertions!

 

[cottage]

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’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. You complain of my use of reason and logic to support my arguments, and then in the very next paragraph you want to dismiss them altogether!
If you make a statement and declare it to be true then it is for you to demonstrate the truth of what you claim. It isn’t for me or anyone else to absurdly go looking for what is proving to be incoherent or logically impossible. If you knew what ‘true reality’ was you would have shown or explained it by now instead of wasting so much time defending opaque and self-contradictory statements.

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.

Ultimately the credibility of the poster must be called into to question, and I’m sorry but this confection of quasi-religious revelation and snake oil salesman’s patter is an insult to my intelligence – and yours! And it is classically a belief system since you’ve no way to falsify what you claim to be true. And where, may I ask, would you have me go, to find this true reality?

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.

Let’s cut to the chase. So explain to me what reality ‘actually is’ then? Tell me what you ‘see’?

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.

I just don’t know how you can say such things with a straight face. ‘Science is having difficulty understanding science’! Science isn’t a supreme, ethereal authority that pronounces on what can be known, and Quantum Mechanics and physics are both of them science. And why are you expressing wonder and uncertainty when, according to your claims and everything you’ve written over umpteen posts you already presume to know the secrets of the Universe?

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.

I’m sorry but it is plain you are promoting a believed-in doctrine. You are posting on a religious forum, not a philosophy site, you copy and paste your gurus’ words verbatim, you post youtube clips (the same ones), quote third parties’ authoritative views, make airy assumptions and sweeping statements (as above), say the same things over and over again as if they were true while never providing evidence or any follow up argument, and you speak in revelatory terms, but with no way to verify your pronouncements. It is a doctrinal belief as faith, which is exactly of a piece with other supernatural declarations that we’ve seen on this religious forum.

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.

‘We’ do not agree the phenomenal world is ‘illusory’. You use the wholly fallacious argument that because some perceptions can deceive us all phenomena is therefore illusory. Evidently it is not, since false perceptions being intelligible are understood as such. Form and matter are real, but the Universe is contingent, ie temporal and uncertain, a possible world as opposed to a logically necessary one. You ask ‘Does my intellect allow that a view free of error is possible?’ My answer is yes, and that is where a thing is self-evident or absurd if denied. You, on the other hand, reject logic and have no means by which to judge what you state as true. And that can only lead you to speak nonsense. You say there is no duality and yet you must acknowledge duality, for if the ‘Absolute’ is ‘One’ then it is not not-One. Similarly, you say the Universe ‘simply is’, which that is to say it is not what it isn’t (A=A). At every turn you call upon logic and features of the contingent world, which makes your claims hollow and inane.

 

[cottage]

Here it is:

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

Thank you for that. I’ve read the page and had a quick look at the links, and I can see plenty of evidence there for the existence of Jesus and his burial but I’ve not been able to find any argument for the Resurrection. Perhaps it’s just my ineptitude? Could you direct me to the relevant parts, please?

Are you going to address this post?:

Do you mean the one beginning with ‘Except for one small detail’? If that is the one then all you’ve done is to reel off a shopping list of verbose statements. And you say ‘It [the mystical experience] is always present, always available to anyone who wishes to access its power.’ Well, if that ‘anyone’ includes you then please inform us of what this mystical ‘power’ is?

*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.

I used the term ‘popular belief’ only because you presented an argument from popularity (argumentum ad populum). As a matter of fact I acknowledge that your particular belief system is not all that popular, or a least not compared with mainstream religions.
You speak of my ‘persistence’ as if I’m an interloper who has the effrontery to continually question your beliefs. And I’m not out to ‘discredit’ anything; we’re having an enjoyable debate not an emotional slanging match. But I consider your argument to a mystical belief to be hugely flawed and self-contradictory, and I believe I have every right to point out those flaws and contradictions.
Now, the reason I say your argument is fallacious is not because of the lack of evidence nor because it can be disproven logically. A fallacy refers to incorrect of reasoning or invalid argumentation, which, I’m sorry to say, has been evident throughout our discussion.
I should point out that I’m not expecting ‘hard evidence’ from you in the form of sensory experience, which in any case is incoherent if one is arguing to a transcendent experience. But that is precisely the stumbling block that your argument cannot overcome, where the ‘Absolute’ is contingent upon the temporal world. Annihilate temporal existence and you annihilate your ‘true reality’.
It is has always been very clear to me that you have not the least idea what is meant by ‘direct experience’, which supposedly makes the ‘mystical view valid’. They are just empty words borrowed from others.

 

[cottage]

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?

Indeed there is a distinction, which I believe I’ve already explained. Beliefs may be certain and true, false, or neither true nor false. I believe that Obama is the President of the United States. President Obama is the President of the United States. Therefore it is a true belief that President Obama is the President of the United States. It is also a true belief that Pegasus is a winged horse, but that such a horse exists is not a belief that is true. And ‘Alien planets exist’ may, or may not, be a true belief. And in answer to your question, no, I am not referring specifically to sensory experience, but to any and all experience that isn’t factual or demonstrable, including possible experience, and I include all mystical and religious beliefs in that summation to have the prefix ‘mere’.

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.

Mind doesn’t pop in and out of existence. In pure metaphysical terms the conscious mind = awareness, a form of wakefulness, a necessary priority without which there could be no thinking. But I apply my own principle to this, as I do to all metaphysics, and it no more explains the external world than any other speculative belief. But the point to be made here is that it is only thought, the product of mind, as self-evident propositions or as demonstration that are certain and true.

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.

To continue with what I mentioned further up the page, ‘metaphysic’ is simply the noun for a system or a set of beliefs that seeks to explain or discover the nature of the world. There are numerous types of metaphysical systems, from atomism to pre-established harmony and from Christianity to Marxist beliefs, none of which are true. And your belief is of exactly the same species, shown by the misleading use of the term ‘know’ and an inability to tell us what ‘it already ‘knows.’ And if seeing is ‘understanding’ then that is to say it is intelligible but then the question is how is the thing understood; or in other words what makes it intelligible? The answer to that is it can only be through the means of a cause and effect relationship: by seeing >the cause>by understanding >the effect. We’re straight back to the phenomenal world that you say is illusory, but upon which you must entirely depend.

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.

What I’m saying here is that everything can only be seen and expressed in terms of mind, and a thing may be immediately seen as intuitively certain because it cannot be false, ie self-evident, or it may otherwise be subject to further thought (Descartes’ ‘Four Rules’: intuition; analysis; synthesis; re-examination*). And since the conscious mind is defined by awareness and thinking, it is true to say that where there is no cognition there is no mind, but it cannot be said without contradiction that ‘There are no thoughts’. Therefore mind is necessary. So once more, if I may, nothing about your argument makes the least sense without the incorporation of thoughts and beliefs. For to bring an argument to the table you need a table, as conceived by the conscious mind.

*Discourse on method

 

[PolyHedral]

The nature of reality can only be understood via the intuitive mind.

The intuitive mind can be understood by the rational analyst, though.

 

[godnotgod]

Whether you like it or not, the universe and humans are stuck in this "glass of Time, Space, and Causation". And unless you can show us that there's something beyond it, you are just making stuff up, based on what you feel like truth.

Time, Space, and Causation are merely concepts of the mind. They don't actually exist as realities. You are 'stuck' in them simply because your MIND is stuck in conceptual mode. The place beyond them is right where you are now. Returning to your original state of mind prior to its indoctrination into the concepts of Time, Space, and Causation allows you to see beyond them.

Can you demonstrate on how to access that "different consciousness"?

It is your ordinary consciousness minus thinking. Just see things as they are. When you think, Time, Space, Causation and the notion of mind will return.

How can you assume that the universe is not real, when you yourself live in it? Unless you can demonstrate how to exit this universe, no other universes exist except the ones in our imagination.

That is a very good observation. This is the only reality, right in front of us, now. However, I can be living in reality, but the phenomenal world of 'things' can still be illusory. It is the difference between being awake and living in a daydream. When you are in a daydream, everything seems real, but it is only a dream. When you awaken, you realize the dream-world was not real. Well, that is how it is with the world we live in. We are asleep, but only think we are awake. Real awakening shows us the true nature of this world, and that true nature is that it is illusory. What is real is the background that manifests it as 'real' to our senses. When you awaken to the reality of both background AND foreground together as a single whole, you will be in true reality. In fact, you have never not been in true reality; only you have been dreaming within it. All that is required is to awaken.

A pot doesn't have an empty space within. It contains collection of gasses that are part of earth's atmosphere. Even if you bring it to space, there're still particles like dust.

Yes, I am aware that empty space is not completely empty, but at the same time, that space is not the same material as the pot, and is absolutely necessary in defining it as a 'pot'. No pot can exist without it, just as no thing can exist without empty space to define it.

You've lost me at the last paragraph. :bow:

How do you define 'thing'?