The Debate of God.

[cottage]

We've already talked about this. This is a concept you don't believe in. This is not a proof. This is you forcing your qualities into a concept of self which you don't believe exists. You cannot force your ideas upon it to make it easier to defeat and expect to have credit for having defeated my ideas.

I’m certainly not ‘forcing my ideas on you’, but simply articulating what is self-evident. And it isn’t a question of what I believe in, but what is demonstrably the case. The self is logically possible and may be true or false, but the concept implies no contradiction if denied. I’m saying to you that if a thing is X then it is not Y. For example, if God is the first cause of all subsequent causes and their effects then God is not a created being, my other beliefs about God notwithstanding. Likewise if there is a self, or a personal or individualised entity, then in any act its priority is necessary, and again that is self-evident quite regardless of my beliefs.

Do you see how you habitually attempt to weaken my arguments by interjecting your own ideas and definitions and saying it must be so? Why can you not debate against my ideas as they are? Why would you not ask questions to clarify the terms rather than just interjecting your own meanings and concepts for any ideas you wish? Don't you feel that if I were to go after a theory of yours in a similar manner, I should be required to demonstrate why my interjections upon your theory more closely mirror the truth? You've supplied nothing like this, and I doubt any is forthcoming.

I want this to be respectful and a real exchange of ideas. I am trying my best to fully understand everything you say to me. However, we can devolve this into me versus you if you are determined to not understand me as it seems.

I understand you very well, but, and with respect, I profoundly disagree that your speculative assertions are in any way a truth. Your argument begins and ends not with any notion of truth but with a doctrinal belief. And what are doctrinal beliefs if not another form of selfish attachment? There has to be some first principle, an indubitable and necessary truth from which other truths may be deduced. All I’m getting from you is a stated belief.

I thought it was an odd example for you to give as proof or demonstration of your point. I tell you that the vast majority of life is trapped in a prison in their mind made of selfishness, and you offer that many parents wouldn't die for the children of others (but some would) as... a counterpoint? All your example demonstrates for me is that selfless behavior is rare to which I agree completely, but how is this contradictory to my theory in any way? What other things do you believe are demonstrated by your example which I am missing here?

Now you are changing tack! I gave my reply to your (presumptuous) question: “Do you honestly believe no people have given up their lives for the children of others?” I explained that people have taken enormous risks to save children from harm, even dying as a result. But while many parent would surrender his or her own life to save a child (organ transplants etc), aware that the result would be fatal, we don’t see strangers coming forward to the same end. The point I’m labouring here being that both examples are selfish, necessarily.

But my argument, if I may remind you, is that the self in any form is both logically and empirically prior to any act. If you worship God, blow yourself up for a cause, tend to injured animals, donate to charities, or subscribe to belief systems, you are answering a selfish need. Similarly the wish to transcend human misery, even if it is to carry all of humankind with you, still implies a prior selfish desire. It seems to me that all it would take to disprove the proposition is a single, distinct example of an unselfish act, that is to say an act or conception that has no benefit, advantage, or positive effect whatsoever for the individual. Try as I may I’m unable to come up with one, but perhaps you might have more success?

You sell this as a rebuttal, but this is just a reiteration and slight extrapolation of your hypothesis. You've not really responded to me, so I don't feel a real need to respond back on this portion beyond pointing this out.

Yet you agree! “I tell you that the vast majority of life is trapped in a prison in their mind made of selfishness.” And I agree with you… well, actually, I go further and say all life is necessarily selfish.

Whatever they may be, they are clear proof that someone thought of the problem you point out with selflessness being fake 2,000 years ago. If you wish to sweep this under the rug as fully irrelevant because it comes from a religious book, I feel justified in accusing you of clear bias in the matter.

How on earth can you accuse me of bias when you take it as a matter of faith that an ancient tome is a ‘clear proof’ of anything? Written words, not mine, yours, or anyone else’s can never demonstrate a full and final proof for a supernatural being or the truth any metaphysical belief system. But I think you already know that?

 

[cottage]

It would be if both desire and desirelessness were present at the same time. What is being said here, is that, while Enlightenment is the most desirable thing in the world, it cannot be realized as long as desire is present. Therefore, desire must first be present, and then surrendered.

That is self-contradictory balderdash! It makes not a jot of difference to say a desired thing cannot be desired as long as the desire is present. By your own words, if a thing is desirable then desire is present.

No, on the contrary! Sentient beings imagine that they, as separate egos acting upon the world, DO exist, when they do not. That is the illusion.

You’re not getting what I said. If sentient beings imagine they do not exist then self-evidently sentient beings are doubting, and to doubt is to think, therefore something corresponding to sentient beings must exist in order for them to exist in thought. This is the essence of your own argument, incidentally! So something corresponding to sentient beings cannot therefore be illusory! And the term ‘separate egos’ is just meaningless mysticspeak.

The giver is not giving to attain what the recipient needs. He already has that. That is why it is his to give. The key is to give without expectation of something in return. That makes the giving unconditional. What is returned unintentionally is also unconditional.

You said there was “a genuine concern for the welfare and happiness of others”.

But self-evidently, and by your own admission, he doesn’t have what he wants! Therefore ‘he’ (whoever ‘he’ is?) is dissatisfied. And why should you ever imagine that someone who has concerns for another already has what he needs? It is an outrageously untrue and sweeping statement to presume to speak in such general terms and claim that someone who is not happy with the world or the plight of others is, himself, already flush with happiness! Ridiculous! And by definition the act is not unconditional if he achieves the desired end.

You're making things much, much too complicated and tortuous, cottage, when simplicity is called for. Just give without any thought in mind other than the giving itself. You want to intellectualize too much, and as a result, fail to understand the simple act of unconditional giving.

And you fail to understand that unconditional giving is a logical impossibility. It isn’t at all complicated. As a matter of fact the utterly exquisite simplicity is that the notion of self is always logically prior to the act, as demonstrated by removal of the self where you no longer have generosity or benevolence but simply an unattributed act.

 

[godnotgod]

That is self-contradictory balderdash! It makes not a jot of difference to say a desired thing cannot be desired as long as the desire is present. By your own words, if a thing is desirable then desire is present.

Right, until it is surrendered.

You’re not getting what I said. If sentient beings imagine they do not exist then self-evidently sentient beings are doubting, and to doubt is to think, therefore something corresponding to sentient beings must exist in order for them to exist in thought. This is the essence of your own argument, incidentally! So something corresponding to sentient beings cannot therefore be illusory! And the term ‘separate egos’ is just meaningless mysticspeak.

As I said, the true Self is also present, which is not illusory, and it is because of the presence of the true Self that doubt occurs. Remember that the true Self is playing Hide and Seek within all the forms of creation, and those forms include the egoic self, the state of Identification.

You said there was “a genuine concern for the welfare and happiness of others”.

But self-evidently, and by your own admission, he doesn’t have what he wants! Therefore ‘he’ (whoever ‘he’ is?) is dissatisfied. And why should you ever imagine that someone who has concerns for another already has what he needs? It is an outrageously untrue and sweeping statement to presume to speak in such general terms and claim that someone who is not happy with the world or the plight of others is, himself, already flush with happiness! Ridiculous! And by definition the act is not unconditional if he achieves the desired end.

You cannot develop a genuine concern for others until you are happy. Until then, your focus is your own selfish desires.

Unconditional simply means not having an expectation of something in return.

And you fail to understand that unconditional giving is a logical impossibility. It isn’t at all complicated.

Impossible, perhaps, for YOU. At least your Logical Brain has convinced you that it is!

As a matter of fact the utterly exquisite simplicity is that the notion of self is always logically prior to the act, as demonstrated by removal of the self where you no longer have generosity or benevolence but simply an unattributed act.

A notion comes into being from non-being. So the self is a self-created imaginary entity, first of all.

Secondly, move your hand without any thought in your mind. See? No thought of self is necessary for an act of giving to occur.

Simple. There is only giving, without a giver. No middle man required. So your silly requirement that 'self is prior to the act' is illogical. The reality is that there is no such 'self' prior to anything, as it is a HALLUCINATION, or, as cottage would have it, a 'NOTION'.

 

[godnotgod]

....the notion of self is always logically prior to the act, as demonstrated by removal of the self where you no longer have generosity or benevolence but simply an unattributed act.

Whaaaa? 'removal of the self'? And who or what exactly does the removing? The 'self'?, LOL

'unattributed act'?....like a machine decides to give you something out of the generosity of its nuts and bolts.

 

[Prophet]

I’m certainly not ‘forcing my ideas on you’, but simply articulating what is self-evident. And it isn’t a question of what I believe in, but what is demonstrably the case. The self is logically possible and may be true or false, but the concept implies no contradiction if denied. I’m saying to you that if a thing is X then it is not Y. For example, if God is the first cause of all subsequent causes and their effects then God is not a created being, my other beliefs about God notwithstanding. Likewise if there is a self, or a personal or individualised entity, then in any act its priority is necessary, and again that is self-evident quite regardless of my beliefs.

My theory states that there exists a true Self behind the ego and that it is selfless. Your contradicting theory is that there is no such thing, but if there was it would HAVE to be selfish. That is what your wording reduces to: telling me my theory is impossible because of your conflicting idea. You have here the first half of a rational disagreement. You disagreed.

The next part is the hard part, and it is one you do when reason is on your side. And you falter, positing word soup (the self is logically prior, transcend your mind) and strong restatements of your claims as defense (aka doctrine aka circular reasoning). Despite our earlier debate on the nature of selflessness, still you flail aimlessly attached to your ideas of its impracticality which themselves are rooted in a confused idea of what selflessness actually is.

So go ahead, word it even stronger, don't bother debating me. You may fool a few who already want to agree with you.

I'm waving the white flag. Debating you is not possible at this time.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

All the while I have been saying that we need to awaken our true [human] nature as intrinsically good, and you think I am saying to deny it; that it is a bad thing? What is bad is not human nature, but the illusions we pursue that result in negative consequences, as the condition of the world testifies to. Basically, our nature is good, but misdirected by desire and ego, the driving forces that tempt and blind us to reality. We are socially programmed to pursue power, sensation, security, prestige, and adulation....all empty pursuits that result in misery for many. All we need do is to look at the recent economic fiascos in our country to see how we have been manipulated into believing a system of lies and deceptions that have resulted in ongoing suffering not only at home, but around the globe. It is the facade of what is good, perpetrated by the exploiters of human nature that needs to be destroyed.

if you honestly believe that someone who has given up all desire and reached your enlightenment can destroy the power system you're talking about here, you're dreadfully naive. Such a thing can ONLY be done by warriors, full of desire and power themselves. Revolutions are not won by people who set themselves on fire in protest. Freedom is only won on the battlefield. People who sit back and do nothing, wind up under tyrants.

My true human nature is fully awake and aware, which is why I have never bought into those power systems. My eyes are fully open, and I know exactly who is friend and foe.

 

[godnotgod]

if you honestly believe that someone who has given up all desire and reached your enlightenment can destroy the power system you're talking about here, you're dreadfully naive. Such a thing can ONLY be done by warriors, full of desire and power themselves. Revolutions are not won by people who set themselves on fire in protest. Freedom is only won on the battlefield. People who sit back and do nothing, wind up under tyrants.

My true human nature is fully awake and aware, which is why I have never bought into those power systems. My eyes are fully open, and I know exactly who is friend and foe.

Can you be a bit more explicit? Which power systems are you referring to? US corporate power systems, or those in, say, the Middle East? Or...?

ONLY a person who has given up all desire can destroy the power system.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Can you be a bit more explicit? Which power systems are you referring to? US corporate power systems, or those in, say, the Middle East? Or...?

Um, you were the one naming such systems. Which one do you want to destroy?

ONLY a person who has given up all desire can destroy the power system.

Im afraid reality does not agree.
There is a reason why the Norse nations are all in the top ranks in terms of prosperity, freedom and population happiness, while Tibet is under the rule of an outside aggressor and is unable to lift that yoke.

 

[godnotgod]

[/color]
Um, you were the one naming such systems. Which one do you want to destroy?

I was not referring to any specific 'power system' to begin, with, but that which produces them. I had said this:

It is the facade of what is good, perpetrated by the exploiters of human nature that needs to be destroyed.

I was referring to a psychological facade, one that is used as a means of exploitation, as in advertising and propaganda.

You then shifted the conversation, saying this:

Freedom [from the power system] is only won on the battlefield.

I assume by 'battlefield' you mean a physical battlefield, and therefore, warfare. And which conflict do you have in mind? The current one in the Middle East, or the one right here in the US, or....? Who exactly is the 'foe' in your mind?

 

[godnotgod]

Im afraid reality does not agree.
There is a reason why the Norse nations are all in the top ranks in terms of prosperity, freedom and population happiness, while Tibet is under the rule of an outside aggressor and is unable to lift that yoke.

Even if Tibet had been armed to the teeth, it would not ever be able to militarily lift the yoke of an aggressor who imposes such massive overwhelming power. Your comparison is not apt.

Time will tell with Tibet, but it is China that will be the one that initiates the lifting of the yoke, just as Great Britain did in India where Ghandi, without holding any position, brought down the British empire without firing a single shot. We also have Mandela in South Africa and King in the US as further examples.

Then we have a country like Buddhist Bhutan, though weak economically and militarily, and having also been under the yoke of British rule, after which Bhutan continued strong bilateral relations with India upon its independence, was rated the happiest country in Asia and the eighth-happiest in the world, by Business Week in 2006, based on a global survey.

Wikipedia

 

[Prophet]

All authority is an illusion created by the ignorance of those ruled. Abolish all ignorance and power will prove itself an illusion when it disappears as well.

 

[confused453]

All authority is an illusion created by the ignorance of those ruled. Abolish all ignorance and power will prove itself an illusion when it disappears as well.

Tell that to the alpha male wolf.

Godnotgod, if you meet a hungry wolf pack, still believing that the world is an illusion, will not only bring them a day's nourishment, but also a good laugh.

 

[godnotgod]

Tell that to the alpha male wolf.

Godnotgod, if you meet a hungry wolf pack, still believing that the world is an illusion, will not only bring them a day's nourishment, but also a good laugh.

Oh, I am so sorry that you missed the meaning of such a lovely metaphor!

It is from a song, called Lordly Nightshade, by The Incredible String Band. Here are the entire lyrics so you can see the passage in context, though it may confuse you even more:

"Down Main Street I go on a duffel-coat hoping instead
For a little room, yawn, I'm so tired with this big bag of coal on my head
It's a top hat I'm trying to sell or a lesson to learn
Vaguely seeking some fire to burn
While a group of middle-aged persons with dwarfish expressions and tinned conversations in Sunday blessed blue
Standing around for a photograph, watch the cuckoo
Do you need any coal?
But it doesn't appear that they do
Then I offered my throat to the wolf but I just can't die
All I can do is fly
Safe and secure in the skirts of the midsummer wood
Cooking soup with stale words and fresh meanings it tastes so good
The green wolf with his bunch of red roses is slinking away
All on a summer's day."
*****

But since you're on the tack you're on, here is a tidbit from the world of Zen you might appreciate. Then again, you may only see it in terms of black and white.

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.
Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other and popped it into his mouth as he fell. How delicious!
*****

There are a rather thick, brutish kind of people in this world who would punch you in the nose to show you that reality is 'real'. They exert their power over others via fear, intimidation, and threat of violence because they themselves are ruled by fear and hatred . You can sense their presence immediately when they come into a room, bristling with aggression. They are the kind who never let you forget First Blood by dangling red meat in your face. "Son, them Smiths kilt yer brother, and don't you ever ferget it, understand?'

This is fraudulent Power and Authority.

​

 

[Prophet]

Tell that to the alpha male wolf.

Godnotgod, if you meet a hungry wolf pack, still believing that the world is an illusion, will not only bring them a day's nourishment, but also a good laugh.

It seems that you are insinuating that because you are able to point out a structure of authority that exists in nature that this is a clear debunking of my theory that authority is created by ignorance. It seems like you are positing that a wild animal could not be seen as ignorant, likely because of some prejudice against their less developed minds being incapable of understanding anything or making real choices, moral and otherwise.

I assure you that your average wild animal is largely ignorant, just like your average human. Authority forming out of ignorance holds in the animal kingdom as well.

 

[confused453]

It seems that you are insinuating that because you are able to point out a structure of authority that exists in nature that this is a clear debunking of my theory that authority is created by ignorance. It seems like you are positing that a wild animal could not be seen as ignorant, likely because of some prejudice against their less developed minds being incapable of understanding anything or making real choices, moral and otherwise.

I assure you that your average wild animal is largely ignorant, just like your average human. Authority forming out of ignorance holds in the animal kingdom as well.

Would you say that a star, like our sun, holds an authority over Earth? Or a black-hole having authority over everything? A star is holding the planets in orbit, so the planets don’t fly away, and also supplying energy for living beings. But it can also go supernova, and destroy or eject planets in a solar system. A super-massive black hole in the galactic center is responsible for the structure of a galaxy, but it shreds stars and planets that get in its way, and then eats them. And it can also blast half a galaxy with gamma ray bursts, destroying lots of stuff, including any life (unless it lives on gamma energy, I guess)... Pure examples of authority shown by the universe itself.

Now lets quietly pray to the sun and the Milky Way core :bow: for letting us live.

 

[confused453]

Godnotgod, I think I understand the context. But I don't understand what it has to do with religion or spirituality. Are you saying that forcing god on people is wrong?

 

[Prophet]

Would you say that a star, like our sun, holds an authority over Earth? Or a black-hole having authority over everything? A star is holding the planets in orbit, so the planets don’t fly away, and also supplying energy for living beings. But it can also go supernova, and destroy or eject planets in a solar system. A super-massive black hole in the galactic center is responsible for the structure of a galaxy, but it shreds stars and planets that get in its way, and then eats them. And it can also blast half a galaxy with gamma ray bursts, destroying lots of stuff, including any life (unless it lives on gamma energy, I guess)... Pure examples of authority shown by the universe itself.

Now lets quietly pray to the sun and the Milky Way core :bow: for letting us live.

Okay. That is your definition of authority which happens to include physics. When I am speaking of authority, I am speaking of an element of a relationship that may exist between any two given sentient beings.

So, while my definition does include relationships within the animal kingdom, it does not include relationships between material objects like you've named above.

 

[confused453]

Okay. That is your definition of authority which happens to just include physics. When I am speaking of authority, I am speaking of an element of a relationship that may exist between any two given sentient beings.

So, while my definition does include relationships within the animal kingdom, it does not include relationships between material objects like you've named above.

Sentient beings are made of the elements created by generations of stars, thus we might as well act in a similar way of authority.

Stuff in space is governed by gravity, and we're governed by our brains. Now, where comes the 'conscious self' in all this? I don't know yet, and keep looking, but I'm not trusting anything that doesn't have 'empirical evidence', as I like to call it now.

Now that I think of it. Is it possible that the world's problems humans face are present because of belief? Would the world be better if everybody would require empirical evidence before following any authority?

 

[Prophet]

Sentient beings are made of the elements created by generations of stars, thus we might as well act in a similar way of authority.

Stuff in space is governed by gravity, and we're governed by our brains. Now, where comes the 'conscious self' in all this? I don't know yet, and keep looking, but I'm not trusting anything that doesn't have 'empirical evidence', as I like to call it now.

Yes, being's BODIES are made of elements but I am not talking about gravity's effect on a being's BODY when I say authority. Your reduction that a sentient being is merely a physical thing is the type of ignorance that makes beings irrationally fear that an authority can end their existence by ending their lives.

 

[godnotgod]

Godnotgod, I think I understand the context. But I don't understand what it has to do with religion or spirituality. Are you saying that forcing god on people is wrong?

What happens when you do that?

If you don't understand what the passage has to do with spirituality, then you don't understand the context. That's OK. Just let it be.