The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

I was born from my mother.

Of course...and she is connected to....?....what?

 

[cottage]

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.

Well, not quite. A thing is impossible only where a direct contradiction or some other absurdity is involved. I’m saying the self is possible but not demonstrable, or, in plain terms, it is not a truth (religion and mysticism are the only branch of metaphysics that want to claim their beliefs as certain truths). But the essence of what I’m saying is a self cannot intelligibly be selfless in the same way that a square cannot but be a rectangle.

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.

The words ‘transcend your mind’ are not mine, and I’m not sure they even makes sense. You accuse me of employing circular reasoning, but give no instances. I should explain that circular reasoning is the finding of an argument for a conclusion given in advance (to quote Bertrand Russell), such as where it is claimed that God exists because it is stated in the Bible. We know this because the Bible is true. And the Bible being true means God exists! Clearly the first premise in that particular example is not a self-evident or a necessary truth, and yet it is repeated in the conclusion is if it were. Whereas my argument from the self is tautologically demonstrated that in all its actions it necessarily considers and sustains itself first, for otherwise it evidently cannot be what it is, which is a contradiction! This is in the same way that a triangle cannot be what it is without its three sides, even if there is no triangle in the world. And the empirical proof follows where there is no conscious act of generosity or kindness free of some element of self-interest.

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.

I’m not out to ‘fool’ anybody. And I’m sorry that you see things in that sense, but your input is still welcome nevertheless.

 

[cottage]

Right, until it is surrendered.

And that just confirms the presence, the prior desire. You are telling us that Enlightenment, which is supposedly a state devoid of all desire, is desirable and can be attained if we ‘go look for it’! But if we ‘go look for it (wherever you suppose one is to go?) then we desire the thing. And what is this intense, preoccupied attachment to a metaphysical belief system, if not an obsessive self-regard?

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.

Since there is no argument or demonstration for a ‘true Self’ there is no contradiction in dismissing it as non-existent. But it is demonstrably the case that something corresponding to sentient beings must exist if sentient beings can question their existence. So while there is evidence for what exists factually there is none whatsoever for what your masters would have you believe doctrinally. And by your own reasoning this non-existent or illusory ‘true Self’ plays hide and seek ‘with all forms of creation’, thus the absolute necessity for cause and effect is soundly demonstrated, a phenomenon you say is illusory! So yet again we see that every strain of your argument begins from the factual world, but then wanders off into speculative metaphysics and then returns again to where you started.

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

So, if it is necessary to be happy in order to have concern for others then that demonstrates the priority of the self. The self must be happy in order to want happiness for others, but “until” it is happy the prior self “focuses on its own selfish desires”. I’m just following your words!

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

Unconditional literally means without conditions, and yet you’ve stated the explicit conditions upon which this cause and effect relationship must be mounted.

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

And impossible for you, too: for to state that an effect is without its cause obliges you to speak nonsense!

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

A notion is just an argument or representation, as with your own words above.
And btw, all metaphysics is notional.

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

“Move your hand”! The identification of such a possession acknowledges the notion of a prior and necessary self.

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'.

“The reality is…” Just more baseless assertions! You say a prior self is illogical, but give no argument or reasoning to show why it is illogical; and that is also a puzzlingly and contradictory thing to say when you’ve already said further up the page that you reject the ‘Logical Brain’!
A “notion” is an idea or conception, which in this case is being used to show a necessary relationship between propositions, but remember the self is not demonstrable.

 

[cottage]

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.

Yes, yes! Precisely! It would be an effect devoid of its cause. But in being obtuse you’re missing something. I gave a demonstration of a logical relationship, where if A is necessary for B and B is necessary for C, then A is necessary for C. We have A saving B from drowning: therefore C, the benevolent and charitable act. An un-attributable act cannot be described as a generous or benevolent deed, since the occurrence would be uncaused or random and therefore illogical in the context of what is being argued. The removal of the self, in respect of selflessness, as a premise, reduces to an evident absurdity.

 

[godnotgod]

And that just confirms the presence, the prior desire. You are telling us that Enlightenment, which is supposedly a state devoid of all desire, is desirable and can be attained if we ‘go look for it’! But if we ‘go look for it (wherever you suppose one is to go?) then we desire the thing. And what is this intense, preoccupied attachment to a metaphysical belief system, if not an obsessive self-regard?

Exactly why it must be surrendered. In other words, a 'gaining idea'. Once again, while Enlightenment is the most desirable thing there is, one must become desireless as desire is an obstacle to its realization. There are many descriptions of this transition, but in Zen terms, the desire for Enlightenment is the workings of what is termed 'small mind'. When it is given up, Big Mind can come into play, which is universal, selfless mind. The illusory self is the state of Identification on the Third Level of Consciousness. During meditation, the Fourth level is entered upon, wherein there is only observation of the self and its thoughts, so from this vantage point, there is no such 'obsessive self-regard' whatsoever. There is simply watching, without attachment, the stream of thoughts as they arise and subside. One is not attaching to them as 'my' thoughts.

Since there is no argument or demonstration for a ‘true Self’ there is no contradiction in dismissing it as non-existent. But it is demonstrably the case that something corresponding to sentient beings must exist if sentient beings can question their existence. So while there is evidence for what exists factually there is none whatsoever for what your masters would have you believe doctrinally. And by your own reasoning this non-existent or illusory ‘true Self’ plays hide and seek ‘with all forms of creation’, thus the absolute necessity for cause and effect is soundly demonstrated, a phenomenon you say is illusory! So yet again we see that every strain of your argument begins from the factual world, but then wanders off into speculative metaphysics and then returns again to where you started.

Of course! The snake, while illusory, is none other than the rope.

Can something that does not actually exist exhibit cause and effect, or only the illusion of same?

So, if it is necessary to be happy in order to have concern for others then that demonstrates the priority of the self. The self must be happy in order to want happiness for others, but “until” it is happy the prior self “focuses on its own selfish desires”. I’m just following your words!

Having your udders constantly in a bunch must be painful for you, but I will admit you are both consistent and persistent in your tortured logic.

No, there is no self that is happy. There is only happiness itself. Remember, the self is illusory.

 

[godnotgod]

Unconditional literally means without conditions, and yet you’ve stated the explicit conditions upon which this cause and effect relationship must be mounted.

Not having an expectation is the state of being 'without conditions'. It is not a deliberate act of will, a state that is not arrived at via thought, so there is no 'cause and effect'. It simply exists as a result of being in a selfless state of mind. They go hand in hand.

 

[godnotgod]

“Move your hand”! The identification of such a possession acknowledges the notion of a prior and necessary self.

But since the self is illusory, a fact you agree to, there can be no such animal. It is the illusory self (in this case, yours) that is determining that a self is moving a hand, when, in fact, there is only 'hand-moving' without a 'hand-mover'.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, yes! Precisely! It would be an effect devoid of its cause. But in being obtuse you’re missing something. I gave a demonstration of a logical relationship, where if A is necessary for B and B is necessary for C, then A is necessary for C. We have A saving B from drowning: therefore C, the benevolent and charitable act. An un-attributable act cannot be described as a generous or benevolent deed, since the occurrence would be uncaused or random and therefore illogical in the context of what is being argued. The removal of the self, in respect of selflessness, as a premise, reduces to an evident absurdity.

Unless, as I have noted several times, there is another kind of Self that is involved in the giving that is the universal, unborn, ungrown Self, that is not "I", that cannot be encapsulated in concept or form as the self-centered egoic self can. It is the pure consciousness involved in the act of unconditional giving for the pure sake of it, without ulterior motive. Apparently that is totally inconceivable to you, but it is true as a rule that most of us do give with some expectation in mind, though it is unspoken but implied.

And so, I am saddened to say, it is YOU, in thinking that black and white Logic and Reason are infallible, that is missing something, a something that is the essential missing something in all of your nicely polished and laid out, but unfortunately faulty arguments, and which should be the basis for them, instead of the cold and calculating logical mind. Your clinical logical reductionist objectivity is missing something on the other side of the equation that would lend balance to it. In order to have a holistic view of reality, you need both sides, not only what comes from the head. You have clinically dissected the moth down to the utmost minutiae, but fail to tell us just what 'moth' is, because you are trying to do that via concept rather than via insight into the true nature of 'moth'.

 

[godnotgod]

“Move your hand”! The identification of such a possession acknowledges the notion of a prior and necessary self.


“The reality is…” Just more baseless assertions! You say a prior self is illogical, but give no argument or reasoning to show why it is illogical; and that is also a puzzlingly and contradictory thing to say when you’ve already said further up the page that you reject the ‘Logical Brain’!
A “notion” is an idea or conception, which in this case is being used to show a necessary relationship between propositions, but remember the self is not demonstrable.

Sounds like a new religion to me, LOL.

"I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No man gets the goods lest he believe in the non-demonstrable Prior Self, which is invisible, odorless, tasteless, formless, and silent.":bow:

I do not reject the 'Logical Brain'; I reject ONLY the Logical Brain.

What is illogical is that it is the self itself that is responsible for the creation of the notion of a 'prior self'. Too bad you cannot see that simple fact.

 

[godnotgod]

A notion is just an argument or representation, as with your own words above.
And btw, all metaphysics is notional.

“Move your hand”! The identification of such a possession acknowledges the notion of a prior and necessary self.

Not necessarily. That is where your logic is faulty. There is not necessarily a 'self' that moves anything; there is, in reality, as I said, only 'hand-moving', without a 'hand-mover'. The notion of a hand-mover that is a prior self is purely a concoction, but one that seems logical.

BTW, did you cook up this notion of a 'prior self' all on your own; that is to say, via of the prior self?, LOL.:biglaugh:

Are you sure you're not hallucinating? :no:



no·tion

• A conception of or belief about something.
• A vague awareness or understanding of the nature of something.

 

[PolyHedral]

If there were a definable 'other' then the universe would no longer be a uni-verse. Any 'other' you can come up with is included within 'universe'. There is no 'other'.

Go on, go check how set theory works. I'll wait.

There is an "other" because I define one into existence. It's still technically part of the universe, but I don't care about that, because I can't deal with the entire universe all at once for various reasons. Describing and constructing various bits of the universe produces practical results which cannot be replicated by any sort of meditation. The components are not real, technically, pedantically, but I'm still going to invent them and use them because they let me understand the universe.

Also, the universe is actually a set of numbers, at its most fundamental.

 

[godnotgod]

There is an "other" because I define one into existence.

Yeah, in your head! Since you are still 100% part of the universe, anything you can dream up is also part of the universe, if you can call a mental concoction a 'thing'.

(Again, here is just another example of the divine nature pretending not to be itself in the playing of the supreme cosmic game of hide and seek!)

It's still technically part of the universe, but I don't care about that, because I can't deal with the entire universe all at once for various reasons.

But admitting it and then denying it and not dealing with it does not mean there is an 'other'. You're just ignoring reality, and interpreting the world via conceptual theoretical thought.

Describing and constructing various bits of the universe produces practical results which cannot be replicated by any sort of meditation.

You're missing the point about what meditation achieves, which is a universal view into the nature of reality. Any and all details your little theories come up with are still part of the nature of reality.

The components are not real, technically, pedantically, but I'm still going to invent them and use them because they let me understand the universe.

Understanding and knowledge are two very different things. Tell me, what does your model let you understand about the nature of the universe?

Also, the universe is actually a set of numbers, at its most fundamental.

Or are numbers merely one of its characteristics?

In order to define 1 and all subsequent numbers, they must have a reference, and that reference is 0. Therefore, contrary to what you say, that:

"the universe is actually a set of numbers at its most fundamental",

the universe is actually a set of no-numbers, which is Zero, at its most FUNDAMENTALLY fundamental.

Since the universe has no 'other' to compare it to, it is the One. And since it is the Absolute, the Infinite, 'as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation', it comes out of No-Thing, which is Zero, because the Absolute cannot be encapsulated by any [one] 'thing' or 'things'.

In other words, 'every-thing comes out of no-thing'.

The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, the author of string theory, seems to be getting closer than anyone with his mathematical calculations of black holes that result in a breakdown of physics, but in that breakdown, there are some clues. He interprets his findings as 'nonsense', as he gets an infinite series of infinities. I posted this video before, but not sure if you saw it, so here it is once again.


Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

Does the bolded text refer to The Hypostasis of the Archons -- The Nag Hammadi Library?

This is a very relevant text to the debate as it speaks to the nature of authority.

Uh, no, that is not the structure of the story I am referring to at all, as it still involves separation from the divine nature, instead of union with it.

I heard the following story years ago on the radio on one of Alan Watts broadcasts. Unfortunately, I did not remember the exact origin of the story, though as I recall, it may have been Persian or from the Indus culture (?). Anyway, the story goes like this:

God creates Adam and Eve and instructs them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, lest they die, just as in the Biblical version. Then God goes away, reappearing to them as a serpent, which tempts them into eating of the Forbidden Fruit, the Forbidden Fruit being a symbol for Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent told Adam & Eve that God did not want them to eat of the Fruit because they would then 'see as He sees', which is Higher Consciousness. God is setting up a piece de resistance, a reverse psychology, to insure that they do eat of the Fruit, because He wants them to achieve divine union and experience Absolute Joy. Story end. Divine union achieved. There is no separation or disobedience or sin or Devil. No need for the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, etc., which Buddhists refer to as 'the long way home'.

 

[Daviso452]

Just want to say how proud I am that this thread has survived so long.

 

[nnmartin]

must be a record - nearly 2000 posts!

congrats

Martin.

 

[Prophet]

Uh, no, that is not the structure of the story I am referring to at all, as it still involves separation from the divine nature, instead of union with it.

I heard the following story years ago on the radio on one of Alan Watts broadcasts. Unfortunately, I did not remember the exact origin of the story, though as I recall, it may have been Persian or from the Indus culture (?). Anyway, the story goes like this:

God creates Adam and Eve and instructs them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, lest they die, just as in the Biblical version. Then God goes away, reappearing to them as a serpent, which tempts them into eating of the Forbidden Fruit, the Forbidden Fruit being a symbol for Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent told Adam & Eve that God did not want them to eat of the Fruit because they would then 'see as He sees', which is Higher Consciousness. God is setting up a piece de resistance, a reverse psychology, to insure that they do eat of the Fruit, because He wants them to achieve divine union and experience Absolute Joy. Story end. Divine union achieved. There is no separation or disobedience or sin or Devil. No need for the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, etc., which Buddhists refer to as 'the long way home'.

In the Adam and Eve account from Hypostasis of the Archons (or Reality of the Rulers) it is not God that is tending to the Garden of Eden, but instead it is the authorities who deceive us and demand that we not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because that very Knowledge unlocks Consciousness.

I just can't see the God I know using reverse psychology. Hell, I can't even see God using normal psychology on anyone. Manipulation of any manner feels foreign to God.

In addition, sin is very real. I'm not really sure if you are trying to say it's not, but it seems like you are, at very least, attempting to downplay it's significance, while I believe it is still something that needs to be understood. Most who condemn sin say sin is in the action, pointing at the harm it does others, but I, without any condemnation, say sin is in the motive, pointing at the harm it does to the mind of the sinner.

To know and be one with God, we must free ourselves from sin.

 

[godnotgod]

In the Adam and Eve account from Hypostasis of the Archons (or Reality of the Rulers) it is not God that is tending to the Garden of Eden, but instead it is the authorities who deceive us and demand that we not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because that very Knowledge unlocks Consciousness.

I just can't see the God I know using reverse psychology. Hell, I can't even see God using normal psychology on anyone. Manipulation of any manner feels foreign to God.

Can God not be a playful God, who loves to play with his children in the manner suggested?

In addition, sin is very real. I'm not really sure if you are trying to say it's not, but it seems like you are, at very least, attempting to downplay it's significance, while I believe it is still something that needs to be understood. Most who condemn sin say sin is in the action, pointing at the harm it does others, but I, without any condemnation, say sin is in the motive, pointing at the harm it does to the mind of the sinner.

To know and be one with God, we must free ourselves from sin.

The allegory is about disobedience to The Law as the Original Sin, but in the version I have presented, there is no disobedience, and therefore, no sin, because God wants his children to partake of the so-called 'Forbidden' Fruit. In other words, the point of the allegory is not obedience to God's Law, but Divine Union with God. This is the mystical view, which incorporates both union with the divine essence as well as being directed by the divine authority, but from within, rather than from without.

In the orthodox version, the emphasis is upon Law, man's disobedience to it, and Sin. Divine Union is never the issue here. Man here is always subservient to God, and can never be the divine essence itself, although grace is allowed. This is the story that is primarily Western. I can only say that I fail to see any rationale in God's motives for creating such a scenario.

re: 'sin', I can only say this: you will note that Yeshu did not ask of his Father that he forgive his murderers for their sin, but for their ignorance. It is exactly for this reason that we also are capable of forgiveness of those who wrong us.

It is ignorance that is the source of the problem. Sin, or what we call sin, is the outcome of ignorance. Enlightenment cures ignorance.

 

[Prophet]

That is an interesting understanding of the phrase "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it. The way I understand it rationally, it says: Forgive them (their sin), because they are ignorant.

 

[Prophet]

Attachment (sin) and ignorance have a definite relationship. They both precede the other. One's own ignorance causes one to sin. One's sin causes others to become ignorant. And so on.

I think we mostly agree here, but let me know if you see something I don't. I have limited attention at the moment.

 

[godnotgod]

That is an interesting understanding of the phrase "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it. The way I understand it rationally, it says: Forgive them (their sin), because they are ignorant.

The emphasis is on their ignorance, and that is why Yeshu can ask forgiveness for them. From the point of view of his murderers, they are the righteous ones, and Yeshu the 'sinner'.