The Debate of God.

[Disciple of Christ]

Let's try...Almighty....it's self explanatory.

Could we explore what the concept of almighty would encompass?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

This arrogance can be tested.
Start a thread.

No need to. The logical conclusion would be that if you were God then you would do as God does? Would you not agree? At least that is how I would see it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You see, the point is that there are two Gods, or divine natures. The one that is Essence, which I have just described as playing all the parts of his creation in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek, in which He sets up the trick of the Forbidden Fruit as a means for his creatures (himself asleep) to attain divine union out of pure unconditional love for them, and the stern, ruthless, moral God of Law, which you so protest against, who is nothing more than an egoic projection of Jewish culture & religion, and whose relationship with man is wholly conditional; the one that means it when He forbade A&E to eat of the Fruit.

In the first scenario, man partakes of the 'Verbotten Vrut'* of Higher Consciousness and divine union is achieved. Goal achieved. Story end. Man and God live happily ever after. No sin. No punishment. A story too good to be true from the standpoint of man's conditioned psychological state.

in the second scenario, which is a corrupted version of the first, the command is obviously misunderstood and taken seriously, man then being banished from Paradise, and having to go through his entire history of suffering and anguish until the final Judgment, when only a relative handful of those who merit a reward are chosen for divine union. The lion's share of the human harvest goes to the Devil, which negates the idea of Good triumphing over Evil, thereby rendering the story untenable.

(Contrast this with Mahayana ('Big Boat') Buddhism, for example, where everyone gets saved.)

*Throughout history, it is the unorthodox, mystical view that was always considered heretical and punishable via extreme means, even death. That ultimate symbol of divine authority on Earth, the Church, came down heavily on the Gnostics and other 'heretics' during the bloody, 400 year long Inquisition. In fact, it was the Jewish religious authorities who demanded the crucifixion and death of Yeshu, the leader of the Jewish mystical cult of the Essene Nazarenes, for blasphemy, wherein Yeshu claimed to be the divine essence himself.

I recall that much earlier in the thread when I was interacting with you a bit more, I asked, why would life be this difficult if a God were directing it, why would truth be hidden and why would this appear to be such a pointless game. I feel as if we've come back around to that point again.

Why is your God of All such a blasted hindrance?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then God is not perfect and you would be therfore you would be God, would you not? Or am I making the wrong assumption in that God (a god) is supposed to be perfect?

I certainly would be, were I not confined to my humble physical form. The point however, is, why is god less smart than I am?

But for semantic sake, 'perfection' does not actually exist. The real benchmark is, the most powerful being within the confines of All. if I am more clever than that which is presented as such a being, then either that being does not exist, or, he's an underachiever.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I certainly would be, were I not confined to my humble physical form. The point however, is, why is god less smart than I am?

But for semantic sake, 'perfection' does not actually exist. The real benchmark is, the most powerful being within the confines of All. if I am more clever than that which is presented as such a being, then either that being does not exist, or, he's an underachiever.

Then he is not almighty and therefore can not be a god by definition of some..

 

[PolyHedral]

I certainly would be, were I not confined to my humble physical form. The point however, is, why is god less smart than I am?

But for semantic sake, 'perfection' does not actually exist. The real benchmark is, the most powerful being within the confines of All. if I am more clever than that which is presented as such a being, then either that being does not exist, or, he's an underachiever.

Of course, this relies on "All" being a well-defined idea. It isn't.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then he is not almighty and therefore can not be a god by definition of some..

That's right, isn't it?

Are you sure your definition of what a God is, is correct?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I certainly would be, were I not confined to my humble physical form. The point however, is, why is god less smart than I am?

But for semantic sake, 'perfection' does not actually exist. The real benchmark is, the most powerful being within the confines of All. if I am more clever than that which is presented as such a being, then either that being does not exist, or, he's an underachiever.

I would think if you were god then you would be confined to nothing.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course, this relies on "All" being a well-defined idea. It isn't.

Well, 'All' involves a great many things. I think thanks to the vast work of others I am at least in the loop. But since I already admitted I am not a God, if Im in error I won't sweat it much

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I would think if you were god then you would be confined to nothing.

What does that mean, exactly? 'Confined to nothing'?

I think you may be skirting the erroneous definition that nothing at all can confine even the Gods of this and all universes. I have stated and discussed elsewhere the idea that even Gods have limits. They cannot exist if they are irrationally defined. I have a feeling that your definition is irrational, and thus, is void. But I may be wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

I recall that much earlier in the thread when I was interacting with you a bit more, I asked, why would life be this difficult if a God were directing it, why would truth be hidden and why would this appear to be such a pointless game. I feel as if we've come back around to that point again.

Why is your God of All such a blasted hindrance?

Seems you can think of yourself as being God, and doing it differently than the ruthless God of the Old Testament. But now, imagine yourself as 'God', all knowing; all powerful; etc. What a bore. Now, for a moment, let us pretend that there is something conscious behind this world. If that is so, such a consciousness is one of great variety, as evinced by the great variety of the universe. Variety comes about via play, does it not? And if we allow a God of creative play*, then would it not be very easy to think of such a God as 'playing' at being something other than himself, just for the sheer sport of it. And so, we have the God of drama, the Actor, who is playing all the parts of his creation simultaneously, but doing it in such a manner as to have forgotten his true identity. In that way, God can play the part to its fullest. And then, upon awakening to his true identity, there is not only great surprise, there is great Joy, and relief that the drama was, after all, only a fiction, and you would find yourself exactly where you are at this very moment. After all, you ARE God, remember?!

So what's so hindering about that?

*Babies, freshly emerging from the universe, know instinctively how to play the game of Peek A Boo. As they grow, they have a natural sense of creative play, even when left by themselves.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Seems you can think of yourself as being God, and doing it differently than the ruthless God of the Old Testament. But now, imagine yourself as 'God', all knowing; all powerful; etc. What a bore. Now, for a moment, let us pretend that there is something conscious behind this world. If that is so, such a consciousness is one of great variety, as evinced by the great variety of the universe. Variety comes about via play, does it not? And if we allow a God of creative play*, then would it not be very easy to think of such a God as 'playing' at being something other than himself, just for the sheer sport of it. And so, we have the God of drama, the Actor, who is playing all the parts of his creation simultaneously, but doing it in such a manner as to have forgotten his true identity. In that way, God can play the part to its fullest. And then, upon awakening to his true identity, there is not only great surprise, there is great Joy, and relief that the drama was, after all, only a fiction, and you would find yourself exactly where you are at this very moment. After all, you ARE God, remember?!

So what's so hindering about that?

*Babies, freshly emerging from the universe, know instinctively how to play the game of Peek A Boo. As they grow, they have a natural sense of creative play, even when left by themselves.

A bore?? Not at all.

As to your premise later, why does such a being need to fool everyone he places to try and figure things out?

Some of that fooling leads to pain and regret, and suffering. Why promote that which you despise, in beings lesser than oneself?

If I were the Greatest, I would not promote such cruelty.

 

[godnotgod]

A bore?? Not at all.

As to your premise later, why does such a being need to fool everyone he places to try and figure things out?

Some of that fooling leads to pain and regret, and suffering. Why promote that which you despise, in beings lesser than oneself?

If I were the Greatest, I would not promote such cruelty.

But it is he himself who is being fooled. In other words, the illusion is so well-crafted, that it appears 'real'. Pain and suffering are not being 'promoted', but they are part of the illusion as well. Whose fault is it if you make the wrong choice? Your true self is always present, but we are overcome with desire which leads us into suffering.

Just being the Greatest is to promote suffering.

So how would you overcome being the perfect Greatest God all the time? Certainly you would seek some diversion, and as I have noted, the universe is multi-faceted, a reflection of the kind of mind responsible for its presence as such. Would'nt you seek/create some form of entertainment, some creation of 'others' in order to have someone to play with in your newly created magic land? In fact, is'nt that what you are doing now on this forum? You are God pretending to be HH, engaged in the game of your choosing, playing it the best you can possibly play. You play it so well, that you even pretended to pretend that you could be God the Greatest.

 

[mholder]

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.

How about the inverse of your statement?

To say as fact...that God does not exist...is inadequate in every way.

While a person can say "I don't believe in God" or that I have "faith" that God does not exist because in my limited capacity to measure the world around me due to my imperfect senses...then that is understandable.

To say "God does not exist" is valueless in and unto itself given our limitations, history of advancements, and the existence of a universe that is beyond our creative abilities.

Suppose someone knows more than you? Suppose someone is right about their "faith" ideas? Just a thought...

 

[Heathen Hammer]

But it is he himself who is being fooled. In other words, the illusion is so well-crafted, that it appears 'real'. Pain and suffering are not being 'promoted', but they are part of the illusion as well. Whose fault is it if you make the wrong choice? Your true self is always present, but we are overcome with desire which leads us into suffering.

Just being the Greatest is to promote suffering.

So how would you overcome being the perfect Greatest God all the time? Certainly you would seek some diversion, and as I have noted, the universe is multi-faceted, a reflection of the kind of mind responsible for its presence as such. Would'nt you seek/create some form of entertainment, some creation of 'others' in order to have someone to play with in your newly created magic land? In fact, is'nt that what you are doing now on this forum? You are God pretending to be HH, engaged in the game of your choosing, playing it the best you can possibly play. You play it so well, that you even pretended to pretend that you could be God the Greatest.

Wait.. why would I need to 'overcome' it?

it is likely, being how I think, that one of the few things I would promote would be to make myself known easily. This is the opposite of what 'is'. I would not conceal, i would not trick, i would not hide or speak in riddles or make reality an illusion that must somehow be pierced by esoteric means. I would actually love my creations and give them everything they needed, so that my benevolence would be actually manifest in their lives. And they would owe me nothing for it. They would be content and creative and want for nothing from my hands.

There is so much time and potential lost; so many lives. I would, and do, pretend nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

it is likely, being how I think, that one of the few things I would promote would be to make myself known easily. This is the opposite of what 'is'. I would not conceal, i would not trick, i would not hide or speak in riddles or make reality an illusion that must somehow be pierced by esoteric means.

The hiding and illusion-making that God does is not to deceive in order to harm, but to play. When you understand that, there is great appreciation. It is said that, should you come face to face with the Devil (who is really the Godhead in disguise), do not be afraid, but compliment him on the quality of his illusion. Most of us are in awe whenever we gaze up into the night sky. We only speak in riddles because we have no other means of expression for the Infinite. It is not man that God is trying to hide from; it is himself. God is merely hiding from himself within all forms, including man. It is his game. And we are it.

Tas atvam asi
*****

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't know, I simply see it as too costly to be played with.

 

[Thief]

No need to. The logical conclusion would be that if you were God then you would do as God does? Would you not agree? At least that is how I would see it.

Nay.
God has a lot of experience.
I've been around just a few decades.

God has the power of creation...I do not.

I might suppose...should I align my thought and feeling in similar manner...
As does God...
I might be entrusted with some of that spiritual ability.

The power of creation in the 'hands' of nay sayers....would be a bit of a problem...
would you not agree?

 

[cottage]

Excuse me, but I have never made such a claim. You are adding things to what I have said that are'nt there.

“You don't 'get' true knowledge. It's already present.”

“We all are enlightened, but only some realize it. I can say for certain that it is absolutely real.”

“But there is another kind of Joy that has no opposite and is eternal: that is Absolute Joy, which is Perfect Happiness.”

“The clue to why the Self decides to transform itself into all the myriad forms of the world and to forget that it is the Supreme Intelligence, has to do with play.”

“There is only Enlightenment itself. In other words, 'Self' is Enlightenment. Because the Self is eternal, Enlightenment is always present. "

“This is the play of maya and lila, in which the Absolute is pretending to be all the forms of the phenomenal world in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.”

“In the case of our ordinary world, I am saying that it is illusory; that we are deceived into believing it to be real, when it is not.”

“No thought of self is necessary for an act of giving to occur.“[/QUOTE]

As for 'life-changing experiences', I am not referring to the garden variety type of life changes that everyone goes through in the maturation process. Those kinds of changes are still within the sphere of a conditioned existence, and do not provide a view into the nature of reality.

Ah, okay. So please explain what sort of experiences do provide a view into the nature of reality? NB It must be explicable if you can discern the difference.

Your ignorance is flaring up once again. If you knew anything at all, you would know how they are linked.

No need to become Mr Angry. Let’s just enjoy the debate.

Yes, indeed they are linked! There are many similarities to be found in those with a disposition that makes them lean towards faith systems and/or supernatural explanations. But the presentation of your arguments puts them closer to a belief-as-faith than to any branch of metaphysics.

I have never presented any second-hand religious doctrine as descriptive of the spiritual experience. I have presented other sources to as an elaboration of a point I may have been trying to make, but those sources reflect first-hand experiences.

The ‘other sources’ are the doctrine you are constantly promoting. And you are taking it on trust that those first-hand or anecdotal experiences are accurate and true, which is another similarity seen in religious circles.

So what? None of them are preaching a religious doctrine that you are being asked to believe in. They are making statements that prompt YOU to reflect on what is being said, so that YOU can determine their validity via of your own authority.

So may I ask why are you posting excessively on a religious site and not a philosophical forum that discusses metaphysics and the nature of reality? But in respect of your last sentence any metaphysical statement, no matter how fantastic, will be valid if its premises are true, but that is not to say the conclusion will be sound. From the beginning of our debate I’ve tried conscientiously to glean small elements of truth from your arguments but they’ve been disappointingly specious or contradictory.

What is the specific doctrine to which you refer? So far, you have failed to provide this information.

I gave you a specific example of the prescription for Enlightenment that you gave to me many posts back (now further down the page).
And then there is the general doctrinal belief where statements are dogmatically asserted without proof or evidence, in other words stated as if they were something true, as in the examples given at the top of this page.

There is nothing beyond the experience itself that is required. You're just making things up to suit YOUR preconceived notions.

I’m not ‘making things up’; I’m enquiring. My thoughts concerning what you think you’ve experienced might be misconceived, but then you yourself don’t know appear to know what you’ve experienced either – that is if you’ve actually experienced anything at all!

Well, you're just plain ignorant, or wrong, or both.

You don’t need to insult me. But I’ll be pleased if you'll just attack my arguments.

[As a small example, I explained several times the difference between being and existence, primarily because most people do not stop to think about it. I also presented pages of discussion on the nature of Time, and how, contrary to our social indoctrination which tells us that time progresses from past to present to future, I presented an argument to show that it actually moves from present to past. And I was on the verge of trying to lead Thief into a discussion of what was meant by 'becoming as little children' as a qualification to enter 'Paradise', but he screwed up the discussion. Again, this idea is one which most people do not really think about, as they simply accept these doctrines as true without question, but do not actually understand what they mean. In all my posts, all I have been trying to do is to prompt others to see something they have overlooked.

You’ve rather missed the point concerning what I said to you. I wasn’t speaking about your metaphysical arguments or existential speculations - and for heaven’s sake it is hardly a mind-blowing revelation that contingent being isn’t necessary! I was referring specifically to your exhorting people to ‘go see for themselves’. Where exactly would you have them go? This never-answered question is a crucial part of my dispute with you, which I shall be pursuing.

 

[cottage]

Ultimately, no one can see for someone else, and can only get what they seek by going to see for themselves. There is no other way.

Then perhaps you would kindly explain to us what is meant by ‘going to see’?

Re: 'prior self': I do not give credence to your doctrinal belief in such a 'willow the wisp' entity. Perhaps you can use it to launch a new religion: "I am the Prior-Self LOL; no man gets to the After-Self lest he believe in ME".

What a joke! Personally, I believe firmly in the "After-Self".

It is not a doctrine but a simple logical construction, but if you think it is ‘joke’ (flippant remark!) then feel free to find fault. Meanwhile I’ll explain…
There is no demonstrable Self or ‘I’. And why do you think that is? I’ll tell you why. It is because anyone can have our ideas and experience. Anything we can conceive may be attributed to other minds, and therefore there is no unique, identifiable Self. But if Self is instantiated then it is necessary and priority is implied necessarily. Your own metaphysic (‘Self’) is in accordance with that self-evident principle, incidentally. Now if you remember I said it seems to me that the ‘Go see for yourself’ exhortation was all about the advocate, bulking up the belief, rather than an act of philanthropy. And this case if Godnotgod is the advocate then whatever is Godnotgod is necessarily prior to what is advocated. But logic apart, I believe we’re looking at a psychological need, for we like to see our ideas and beliefs reflected and confirmed in others. When it comes to thoughts we cannot claim ownership, and the ego is not demonstrable, but the association is a compelling one, which is why we cannot but write and speak in the first person. It is well understood that selfishness is what sustains the objective world, and that is the only world from which we can imagine others, since that is undeniably where we must begin.

Thank you for your definition, but that does not apply to a finger pointing to the moon, nor to 'pondfrogleapslpash'. Try again.

It wasn’t so much a definition but more of an accurate description of the way you explained the passage below, in very doctrinal terms:

“…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.”

Is that so? Your brilliance is indeed astounding to behold; too bad it has nothing to do with Zen which is a direct reflection of reality, and contains nary a whiff of any doctrine whatsoever, for the stupendously simple reason that Zen is not a belief in reality, but the direct apprehension of it, via of seeing, totally contrary to what you continue to insist upon, for the ridiculously simple reason that you carry the wretched excess of your Western philosophical baggage hither and thither, thereby repeatedly contaminating the pristine Present with the past, or, to be more specific, with the ridiculous notion of a 'Prior Self' (ROFLOL) you yourself hatched within the confines of your own mental encapsulations, showing once again, that the mind is a self-created principle.

It most assuredly is a doctrine since it is informing us that something is the case, and it doesn’t express doubts or discuss possibilities, as we see with other philosophical expositions. In fact, teachings on any level are doctrinal when the student isn’t invited to disagree on any specific or general points. In any case, it is only a claimed ‘direct apprehension of reality’, which never so much as mentions the alluded-to state, and therefore it is an argument for believers, or for those who are disposed to believe-in such things.
You are saying there is no self and yet the mind can create principles that apply to the self! This is confusion upon confusion, especially considering your own arguments where you’ve constantly argued for the Self. And if I’ve ‘hatched the notion myself’, then self-evidently, ‘myself’ will be antecedent to my ‘mental encapsulations’!

Here are a few of your own thoughts on the matter:

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

“Therefore, there is no attachment to the thought from the higher level, because there is no self to identify with the thought. This higher state is appropriately termed 'Self-Transcendence'.”

“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.”

Once again, I point to the moon, and you rabidly lunge at my pointing finger, having missed seeing. But that's OK, as you will eventually tire of such futility, and will be in need of seeking another approach, and if you are fortunate, may simply see things as they...or rather, IT is, having dropped your baggage for one brief moment.

You said nothing whatsoever in that entire paragraph, other than alluding to a speculative belief. And with respect you are not merely pointing at something. You are making claims and assertions that you never support of follow through, except by copying and pasting other believers’ writings.