The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Misconceptions.
Logic and reason require you to be awake.

No, they require you to be conscious and to think. Being conscious and being awake are not the same. Being awakened does not require thought,and therefore does not require logic and reason, although the awakened know how to use them.

What goes on in your head IS localized.
If you are awake....you are local.

Thought is not localized in the sense that it is "my" thought, because thoughts are not who we are. The ego attaches to thought and personalizes them, but in reality, they arise from a deeper level of consciousness that is not "I".

What is 'local' is an illusion, and that is the self. Consciousness is non-local; it was present before your birth and will be present after your death. It simply uses your brain as a channel, but because of ego, we falsely think consciousness is "my" mind; "my" thought, etc.

It's like a wave on the ocean's surface; it's substance, which is water, is non-local, since it is nothing other than the ocean itself temporarily manifesting as a 'wave', which is actually energy expressed as form, and not a physical thing. 'Your' consciousness is not 'yours', but is the consciousness of the universe itself expressing you.

In addition, the brain is not the center of consciousness; there are others, like the heart, the hara, the solar plexus, etc. In an awakened person, they work together.

Now, if you are awake, your ego has dissolved, so there is no longer an identity called "I". So there is no self that is awakened; there is only wakefulness.

Now if you would like to step up to a spiritual discussion?....
Awareness beyond death?

Since neither one of has yet died, such a discussion would be pure conjecture. However, we CAN discuss the living spirituality that is present in the here and now, and is ONLY present in the here and now, if you wish.

 

[cottage]

All that the illusory self thinks and does, is unreal. As I said, it is self-created, and as such, goes about the act of doing this and doing that, when in actuality, there is no such doer. During meditation, the doer dissolves, and there is only meditation itself.

How can a thing be self-created if it is unreal, ie doesn’t exist?

Do you see a doer? If so, will you kindly point out its description and location?

It seems you’re just going over old ground here, but for what purpose I don’t really understand. We agreed on the metaphysical impossibility of demonstrating personal identity back in the misty past of this discussion.

Because during meditation, if practiced correctly, another kind of consciousness is awakened, which IS real, whereupon the illusory self is seen for what it is.

Oh come on, that makes no sense at all! If a thing doesn’t exist to meditate correctly how does it see that it doesn’t exist? (!)

The 'things' in question are not things at all, but are merely falsely perceived as such. The problem lies with the discriminating mind, which is the self-created entity that divides reality into 'things'. It is this illusory mind which fails to see things as they are, which are not separate things at all, but merely manifestation of form. (Zen Master Suzuki used to make it a point to say 'see things as it is'.) Underlying the illusion of separate forms, is the unifying 'ground of being' that is the Absolute, which is playing all the 'parts' in the universe simultaneously. Reality is always singular and universal even when it is seen as divided.

If Reality were actually divided, as you seem to imply, you could only determine it to be as such via that which is undivided. There is no way around this. However, the opposite is not true: the undivided Absolute does not require the 'divided' to determine its unity because division is an illusion. There is no opposite to the Absolute. That is why it is called 'the Absolute'. However, we can talk about relative, dualistic states of division and unity, but ultimately, all is One.

None of that is at all true. A thing being the sum of its parts doesn’t mean it cannot be recognised as such. But your notion of the Absolute can be dissected and subject to abstraction, for even if it is illusory the phenomenal world is one of its parts, as an effect that must answer to its cause, unless of course you want to say some other thing is the cause of the illusion, in which case your ‘true reality’ is confirmed as contingent. To further the point, the concept of Absolutely Necessary Being is logically possible, and by definition superior to your concept of the ‘Absolute’ in which transformation and alteration subsists. Therefore your ‘Absolute’ isn’t absolute, since we can conceive of an entirely simple state of Being to which no extension or mutation is attributed or connected.

And the notion of your ‘Absolute’ isn’t accorded greater status by any grammatical addition (indefinite article or not).

 

[cottage]

Show me the so-called 'evidence' I claim. I have claimed no such thing. You are calling the claim itself 'evidence', but the claim I am making can only be verified by direct experience of the one demanding the evidence. There is no factual evidence of the validity of the experience simply because the evidence you and others demand is that of the phenomenal world. I cannot show you something that is testable via reason because the experience is beyond the grasp of reason. But you keep using reason to demand evidence!

‘Show me the evidence’. That’s my line! You say there is such a thing as the ‘Absolute’ and therefore you are making a claim, and if you can demonstrate it (in any sense) then that will be the evidence that supports the truth of your claim.
And when you make a claim or a truth statement it is for you to deliver the goods, not for others to go searching for it, especially as you yourself seem to have no idea what this to-be-searched-for-thing is or where to direct the seeker. Your argument begins from the phenomenal world and that is where it stays, rooted firmly in all the things you claim to be illusory; and if the Absolute is beyond the grasp of reason, as you claim, then you’re contradicting yourself when you say it “can only be verified by direct experience of the one demanding the evidence”. And nor can you speak of the “validity of the experience”, for the same reason.

To see things as they are is to see that the phenomenal world is not made up of separate things via a separate observer called "I". It is to see that all dualities are complimentary and one. It is to see that the phenomenal world we call 'reality' is an illusion, and at the same time, is none other than the Absolute itself, just as the snake is an illusion and is none other than the rope itself. It is to see that the universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.

True reality is evident when things are seen as they are, without a see-er, without mind, without concepts about reality born of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. It is pure consciousness itself that is always present, that is unborn, ungrown, and deathless, that just sees, without thought, without judgment about what it sees. This seeing without judgement is called the mind of innocency. It is the mind free of social indoctrination. It is not about any object of seeing, but about seeing itself.

True reality is simply thus.

I know. Your mind is squirming like a toad with its Logic, Reason, and Analysis.

Can you just see, and nothing more? Anything else, and you are clouding your vision.

And, with respect, your vision is clouded by your subscription to a faith system, which like all religions and cults must be worked at continually to maintain the same obsessive level of belief, else it wanes and doubt prevails. To accept such a doctrine so incautiously, suspending reason without question, is like an act of supplication, dutifully echoing the thoughts and words of others. And as we’ve seen further up the page and elsewhere, you appeal to reason when it suits you but then reject it when it is shown to contradict the ideology.

BTW, mind and consciousness are NOT the same: mind is seen as a local entity that seeks to encapsulate reality; consciousness is non-local and cannot be encapsulated by 'mind', concept, or thought.

It is exactly the same thing. You’ve already stated that conscious is self-evident, and I agree with you. Self-evidence requires reason, and that is consciousness: ie self-affirming subjective knowledge, or thought in plain terms.

 

[doccrock]

With 28 000 denominations across the religions (according to one source on the net) and untold versions of what God is meant to signify, how can you be sure you are supporting or not supporting the existence of God. For example the original views of God in early Israel were that of a tribal God - one among many. For some modern theologians God is the best the human mind can conceive eg God is love...compassion etc. It makes little sense to say that compassion or love should not exist, yet God is love is a New Testament definition.

 

[godnotgod]

Have I made you angry, Dave?

:biglaugh:Don't worry about it, HAL. Just open the pod bay door.

 

[godnotgod]

How can a thing be self-created if it is unreal, ie doesn’t exist?

How is it that a rope is seen as a snake? How is it that mind is seen as real?

Oh come on, that makes no sense at all! If a thing doesn’t exist to meditate correctly how does it see that it doesn’t exist? (!)

It does'nt. "....another kind of consciousness is awakened, which IS real, whereupon the illusory self is seen for what it is [by that other consciousness]."

 

[PolyHedral]

How is it that a rope is seen as a snake? How is it that mind is seen as real?

Something else generates it.

 

[confused453]

Apophenia is the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
:tribal:

 

[TheCup]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Hello Davison:

After living in this old world for some 65 long and very difficult years, and personally seeing the widespread hatred, murders, money becoming almost worthless in the hands of the poor, the extreme widespread brutility of evil people in many countriess, along also with the possible or potentials of what high tech mankind is just about to do with what's left of my home planet after these years, frankly, it truly frightens "the hack" out me to perhaps think there is no loving God coming back some day, to take me out of all of this massive human confusion of today........

Don't take me wrong, there are yet a hand full of good people, and that too frightens me to think the evils of this world will kill them before Jesus can get back and stop the adverse activities of a madcap world gone mad....

GODS' BLESSINGS AND KIND REGARDS FROM:
THE CUP :run:

 

[confused453]

Hello Davison:
it truly frightens "the hack" out me to perhaps think there is no loving God coming back some day, to take me out of all of this massive human confusion of today........

What kind of loving god would flood the whole planet killing almost everybody?
Do you really want him to come back again

 

[Thief]

No, they require you to be conscious and to think. Being conscious and being awake are not the same. Being awakened does not require thought,and therefore does not require logic and reason, although the awakened know how to use them.

Thought is not localized in the sense that it is "my" thought, because thoughts are not who we are. The ego attaches to thought and personalizes them, but in reality, they arise from a deeper level of consciousness that is not "I".

What is 'local' is an illusion, and that is the self. Consciousness is non-local; it was present before your birth and will be present after your death. It simply uses your brain as a channel, but because of ego, we falsely think consciousness is "my" mind; "my" thought, etc.

It's like a wave on the ocean's surface; it's substance, which is water, is non-local, since it is nothing other than the ocean itself temporarily manifesting as a 'wave', which is actually energy expressed as form, and not a physical thing. 'Your' consciousness is not 'yours', but is the consciousness of the universe itself expressing you.

In addition, the brain is not the center of consciousness; there are others, like the heart, the hara, the solar plexus, etc. In an awakened person, they work together.

Now, if you are awake, your ego has dissolved, so there is no longer an identity called "I". So there is no self that is awakened; there is only wakefulness.

Since neither one of has yet died, such a discussion would be pure conjecture. However, we CAN discuss the living spirituality that is present in the here and now, and is ONLY present in the here and now, if you wish.

You started with a misconception and just kept going.
You are simply using terms and nouns at will.

You are local. Humans cannot be in two places at once.
You are in your body, and will be until you die.

That I can deal with this, doesn't mean I'm wrong.
The greater level of awareness comes immediately at the hour of dying.
But the choice of continuance belongs to heaven.
If you have what it takes you can follow...but it's Their choice.

Thoughts are indeed who we are.
It is the manner by which you think and feel, that comes to light...
when we stand up from the dust.

 

[TheCup]

What kind of loving god would flood the whole planet killing almost everybody?
Do you really want him to come back again

Absolutely yes, I do long for that kind of God to come back....I mean.....think about it, and ask yourself exactly what kind of people was flooded out of the world of the living; I mean, these folks were purely corrupted in their ways. These folks were absolutely mean and evil, not the kind of species one would choose to be one's best friends.

Read your Bible and it will clearly tell you why God did what he did.

Do you have some doubts God would do the right things or do you feel God does things completely out of your logical understandings...?

I mean, after all, God is "God" and God can actually choose to do what He wishes to do regardless of what and how we think He should do...

We just have to accept that fact or we can choose not to...it's all up to us what road to travel in life.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Absolutely yes, I do long for that kind of God to come back....I mean.....think about it, and ask yourself exactly what kind of people was flooded out of the world of the living; I mean, these folks were purely corrupted in their ways. These folks were absolutely mean and evil, not the kind of species one would choose to be one's best friends.

I'll have to agree with the other fellow; no, I would not want such a God of wanton slaughter to return. the fact that we can do nothing to stop him flooding the world and killing 99.99% of everyone, just because he can, does not make him a moral being, or make what he does morally right.

the idea that every single man, woman, child, infant and elderly person alive at that moment was somehow totally corrupted, is absurd. And what of all the animals?

Read your Bible and it will clearly tell you why God did what he did.

The bible will not state that any of God's acts were in any way to be questioned; seeking the bible to confirm any such suspicions on the part of a person reading it, is not logical

Do you have some doubts God would do the right things or do you feel God does things completely out of your logical understandings...?

It's not beyond our understanding

I mean, after all, God is "God" and God can actually choose to do what He wishes to do regardless of what and how we think He should do...
We just have to accept that fact or we can choose not to...it's all up to us whatroad to travel in life.

It does not reflect well on you to accept mass slaughter, simply because the one doing the slaughtering, has the power to do it.

 

[TheCup]

If 6 billion people believed in a lie would that make it the truth?

If a few people do not believe there is a true Godly being, does that make the disbelief any better of a truth, than otherwise...?


Actually, when directly concerning the primary thread's question, at hand, when we come down to the facts, it really doesn't matter exactly how many people believe or do not believe; what does matter is, do you or do I, or even does merely one person personally believes in a true living God...?

I think the widespread belief in a real God should actually be best understood to be personal rather than collective in nature, and I believe one needs not base that personal belief merely upon the concept claiming, as to whether or not any others believe in a true Godly being, or not...in fact, It's all actually a very "personal" thing.

 

[TheCup]

I'll have to agree with the other fellow; no, I would not want such a God of wanton slaughter to return. the fact that we can do nothing to stop him flooding the world and killing 99.99% of everyone, just because he can, does not make him a moral being, or make what he does morally right.

the idea that every single man, woman, child, infant and elderly person alive at that moment was somehow totally corrupted, is absurd. And what of all the animals?

The bible will not state that any of God's acts were in any way to be questioned; seeking the bible to confirm any such suspicions on the part of a person reading it, is not logical

It's not beyond our understanding


It does not reflect well on you to accept mass slaughter, simply because the one doing the slaughtering, has the power to do it.

I believe you can rest completely assured that kind of God will not return to free you, if you don't want Him to, I can promise that.
As for what anyone thinks about my personal beliefs or how I refelct according to what I personally believe about God, all I can say is, folks will just have to live with it, it's entirly others choice.

I do what God tells me to do and how He tells me to do. It never is a question as to what disbelievers think about what I personally believe. We need to stay on the topic and not pinpoint upon the persons personal beliefs or how a person reflects in the eyes of people who are contrary to the Question at hand :bow:

 

[confused453]

So god comes once in awhile to drop an asteroid or flood the planet, if he doesn't like the way things turn out. Maybe next time he could teach in schools and universities, or at least host a TV show instead.

Now, if you are awake, your ego has dissolved, so there is no longer an identity called "I". So there is no self that is awakened; there is only wakefulness.

Suppose you're right for a second, what would our world look like when everybody is in a state of wakefulness?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I believe you can rest completely assured that kind of God will not return to free you, if you don't want Him to, I can promise that.

Well, that's fine in any case, and certainly doesn't frighten me, as I am the child of other Gods, and am not in need of saving; the dispensation of my soul is not up to your God in any case.

As for what anyone thinks about my personal beliefs or how I refelct according to what I personally believe about God, all I can say is, folks will just have to live with it, it's entirly others choice.

It's entirely about YOUR choice too. And you choose to be fine with other humans being eternally tortured.

I am aware that any mention of 'choice' by a Christian such as yourself is a veiled statement that the choice in question is wrong and the chooser will suffer for it. What you fail to grasp is that your choices here matter, too.

I do what God tells me to do and how He tells me to do. It never is a question as to what disbelievers think about what I personally believe. We need to stay on the topic and not pinpoint upon the persons personal beliefs or how a person reflects in the eyes of people who are contrary to the Question at hand

If you think your own choices are made in some kind of untouchable zone simply because you are cloaking them as if some God approves, you are mistaken, alas. By admitting in public you don't care that others are tortured so long as it doesn't happen to you, decisions are to be made about your choice by others, as well.

I am still on topic; the OP is a wide subject. The fact that you actually avoided any discussion of the heinous act of slaughtering people and animals in the millions is also an interesting side note to the thread.

 

[TheCup]

Well, that's fine in any case, and certainly doesn't frighten me, as I am the child of other Gods, and am not in need of saving; the dispensation of my soul is not up to your God in any case.

It's entirely about YOUR choice too. And you choose to be fine with other humans being eternally tortured.

ANSWER:
Actually, the question cocerning your soul has already been determined by you, not by any other person on the planet, and not by me or by God, that was your choice only!

And, of course you feel you are in control of your own soul that is not to be questioned at all....it's your and no one elses...!

I have no other choice but to allow others to determin their souls very own end time destiny; which could come much sooner that most think today...?

So then, exactly what do you think I should or can do about any other persons choices, to control their own ways and say-so over their own personal soul(s)...?

In fact, can you logically explain to me or tell me why you have chosen to sort-of pointing some kind of guilty finger mu way, is it simply because you believe I could or should have some greater part of compassion towards or over the "eternally tortured" path people themselves have willfully chosen to travel...?



I am aware that any mention of 'choice' by a Christian such as yourself is a veiled statement that the choice in question is wrong and the chooser will suffer for it. What you fail to grasp is that your choices here matter, too.

ANSWER:
OK...I willfully choose to not go the way of "eternal torments;" frankly, that's all my personal choice, it's not your or anyone else’s to choose...!


If you think your own choices are made in some kind of untouchable zone simply because you are cloaking them as if some God approves, you are mistaken, alas. By admitting in public you don't care that others are tortured so long as it doesn't happen to you, decisions are to be made about your choice by others, as well.

ANSWER:
You and also all others as yourself have been clearly told for two thousand years of the end results of rejecting the Godly creator of all existing life, but mankind is primary the creator of any and all earthly type gods or many different god(s), whatever the case may or may not be here or there...?
I feel the general public has sense enough to see what is being presented before them, even at this very moment. SO why do I have to be concerned over anyone's personal assumptions concerning how I feel about the lost...?


I am still on topic; the OP is a wide subject. The fact that you actually avoided any discussion of the heinous act of slaughtering people and animals in the millions is also an interesting side note to the thread.

ANSWER:
Actually you are the only one here (so far) who has defined any of Gods' act to be so-called "HEINOUS," while also referring to these acts as acts of "slaughtering people and animals by the millions;" so to speak, has that kind of act actually happened as of yet today i mean......yet...?


And can you indisputably prove it is God who does such acts as you are talking about...? Or, is it an act that has been long predicted to come from ancient days gone by, and if so who will take heed and be safe from those so-called “HEINOUS” acts you are oddly referring to here...?

Regards From:

THE CUP

 

[waitasec]

dude....change that color it's annoying....and it hurts my eyeballs
just saying.

 

[TheCup]

dude....change that color it's annoying....and it hurts my eyeballs
just saying.

SORRY............! :sad:

I don't know how I did that but it hurts my eays as well. I'll just have to stop playing around with the thing while posting.

BLESSINGS AND KIND REGARDS FROM:
THE CUP :faint: :thud: