The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

... our inability to think of ourselves because our brain is dead ultimately deems our person lifeless, as in consciousness-less. At least thats what I think.

Do you subscribe to the dictum: "I think, therefore I am"?

 

[Gui10]

Oh, but there is. Who, or what, is this "I" that is also "me" to which "you" refer?

I claim it to be a hallucination.

Yea, you must be hallucinating...its a bit early to be taking drugs no?

 

[Gui10]

Do you subscribe to the dictum: "I think, therefore I am"?

Certainly do.

 

[godnotgod]

Yea, you must be hallucinating...its a bit early to be taking drugs no?

So if this "I", that is also "me" is not a hallucination, can you show me where it dwells?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVM_Xk_o9E

 

[godnotgod]

Certainly do.

And so, when I not-think, I therefore am not?

 

[Gui10]

And so, when I not-think, I therefore am not?

Precisely.

 

[Gui10]

So if this "I", that is also "me" is not a hallucination, can you show me where it dwells?


[youtube]OAVM_Xk_o9E[/youtube]
Alan Watts - "I" - YouTube

Video.

 

[godnotgod]

Precisely.

So this "I" is a hallucination.

 

[Gui10]

So this "I" is a hallucination.

Your first two question were logically irreprochable.

Your conclusion, however, is not so.

 

[Gui10]

And, on top of it all, I still fail to understand the point you're trying to make.

Or is because you are not trying to make a point at all.

 

[godnotgod]

Your first two question were logically irreprochable.

Your conclusion, however, is not so.

You first stated that your existence is based on the fact that there is an "I" that thinks, ala Descartes.

Then you admitted that when not thinking, you do not exist.

How can you say you exist, and then say that your existence is dependent upon thought? That is not what Descartes meant. He simply meant that thought was evidence of existence.

And, on top of it all, I still fail to understand the point you're trying to make.

Or is because you are not trying to make a point at all.

The point I am trying to make is that this thing you call "I" is a self-created illusion. There is no thinker of thoughts; there is only thinking itself.

You claim there is this thing you call "I" that exists, that it is an agent of thought, and that no one need question your claim, just as the religious fundie claims there is a God and no one should question their faith. All I am requesting is that, in light of your claim, you demonstrate its reality. Surely you can tell us its locale. Perhaps it can invite me in for a spot of tea and crumpets so we might discuss the matter of its purported 'existence'. Once that is established beyond any doubt, we can go on to bigger and better things, like boogeymen, Santa Claus, and even Gawd Almighty.

 

[Thief]

To understand how we, as humans, though seemingly unique, are made of the same common stuff underneath the outward appearances, just as all unique snowflakes are made of water. Though unique, they all dissolve away into nothingness. Why are we any different?

The comparison does not work.
Unless you are willing to admit how flaky you are.

Can you bring it here and show it to me?

Your ego is displayed in your constant and shallow retort.
If you are truly nothing...as you say....
you have no dog in this fight....your words are nothing be hot air.

It's as if you desire to be nothing.
That desire can be fulfilled.

Heaven is not for everyone. Several debates going on even now, can show that to be so.

Your declaration can be held to you.
Nothing you are....nothing you shall be.

But I suspect you will get to see a glimpse of heaven...just as your light fails.

Your position is kinda like Pascal's Wager in reverse.
Don't believe in an afterlife...and you don't have to deal with it.

 

[godnotgod]

Quote:
Originally Posted by godnotgod
To understand how we, as humans, though seemingly unique, are made of the same common stuff underneath the outward appearances, just as all unique snowflakes are made of water. Though unique, they all dissolve away into nothingness. Why are we any different?

The comparison does not work.
Unless you are willing to admit how flaky you are.

You are just as snow-flaky as I or anyone else: unique and yet all made of the same stuff.

Can you bring it here and show it to me?

Your ego is displayed in your constant and shallow retort.
If you are truly nothing...as you say....
you have no dog in this fight....your words are nothing be hot air.

and you and your fighting dog are nothing but hot-headed, taking sides and creating conflict and suffering in the world where no sides are called for.

It's as if you desire to be nothing.
That desire can be fulfilled.

Out of nothing comes everything.

Heaven is not for everyone. Several debates going on even now, can show that to be so.

Heaven is merely your belief, based on the other belief of the system of reward and punishment, in which your ego projects itself as being 'worthy', as compared to the 'unworthy', in its dirty little game of spiritual one-upmanship. Without you creating a concept of the unworthy, you would'nt exist as being worthy.

Your declaration can be held to you.
Nothing you are....nothing you shall be.

If I am no-thing, then there is no self, and if there is no self, then there is nothing that dies, as you need a self in order to do so.

But I suspect you will get to see a glimpse of heaven...just as your light fails.

What I am getting a glimpse of is just how sadistic your ego is. Maybe God will give you a nice comfy seat right at the edge of Heaven, with blankee and cappuccino in hand, while you watch intently at the souls writhing in agony in the pit below, all for your entertainment, applauding at how they are getting exactly what they deserve.

Your position is kinda like Pascal's Wager in reverse.
Don't believe in an afterlife...and you don't have to deal with it.

Who needs an afterlife when Paradise is all around and inside right now? You and your silly dog are busily destroying God's Paradise so your ego can gain entry into an exclusive Heaven in the clouds. Insane.

 

[Gui10]

You first stated that your existence is based on the fact that there is an "I" that thinks, ala Descartes.

Then you admitted that when not thinking, you do not exist.

How can you say you exist, and then say that your existence is dependent upon thought? That is not what Descartes meant. He simply meant that thought was evidence of existence.




The point I am trying to make is that this thing you call "I" is a self-created illusion. There is no thinker of thoughts; there is only thinking itself.

You claim there is this thing you call "I" that exists, that it is an agent of thought, and that no one need question your claim, just as the religious fundie claims there is a God and no one should question their faith. All I am requesting is that, in light of your claim, you demonstrate its reality. Surely you can tell us its locale. Perhaps it can invite me in for a spot of tea and crumpets so we might discuss the matter of its purported 'existence'. Once that is established beyond any doubt, we can go on to bigger and better things, like boogeymen, Santa Claus, and even Gawd Almighty.

These two claims are miles from equal.

 

[godnotgod]

These two claims are miles from equal.

If you are referring to the claim that God exists and the claim that "I" exists, then they are the same, but one is an egoic projection pointing outward, while the other is a self-created principle pointing to itself.

So, can you show me the location of this thing you call "I"?

 

[Gui10]

If you are referring to the claim that God exists and the claim that "I" exists, then they are the same, but one is an egoic projection pointing outward, while the other is a self-created principle pointing to itself.

So, can you show me the location of this thing you call "I"?

You just said ''they are the same, but one is this, and one is that''.

That's usualy what I call different.

The location of this ''I'' is right here, where my body is.

 

[godnotgod]

You just said ''they are the same, but one is this, and one is that''.

That's usualy what I call different.

No. The same ego both projects itself outward onto an image it creates, called 'God', and also self-creates the self-image called 'I'.

The location of this ''I'' is right here, where my body is.

So 'you' and 'your' body are different?

 

[The Fog Horn]

Do you believe in the Wizard of Oz?

 

[godnotgod]

Do you believe in the Wizard of Oz?

I neither believe; nor not-believe.

Why do you ask?

 

[cottage]

Faith may indeed be present prior to seeing, but seeing is not dependent upon belief. Quite simply, there is no doctrine in reality itself, and seeing is a direct reflection of reality; therefore, there is no doctrine in seeing either. Faith is merely a state of mind conducive to seeing, but is not the seeing itself, just as a finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself.

What I am saying here is that there is a marked difference between faith and belief.

Belief clings.
Faith lets go.

What we’re seeing in your posts is an example of a believed-in metaphysic. But because it is a belief-in (as opposed to a belief-that) it is not metaphysics as theoretical or hypothetical argumentation but a doctrinal belief-as-faith and thus no different to religion in the classic sense, where nothing is permitted to count against the stated belief.

You keep asking 'what is seen'?, but in seeing, there is no object nor a see-er of objects. There is no self or other; no this or that.

But you are not answering my question. I addressed this point in my response previous to this one where I said that, for the sake of argument, even if we remove the see-er from the equation there is still a vision or the thing seen, which in fact is what you are saying. You are making a claim, that something is the case, that you cannot be mistaken about what you assert is true reality, and I’m asking what is this ‘vision’ that enables you make and justify such an adamant assertion?

Seeing itself is the end experience. So, as I stated, there are no separate things to be seen, since separate things are an illusion. You are looking for something to grasp when there is nothing to grasp. Put a stop to your grasping mind and just see, without seeking something to see. To do so puts the discriminating mind in motion once again, wherein it creates fragmentation of reality. Reality is not fragmented; it is One, and that which sees is nothing less than the universe itself seeing itself through its own eyes. The self-created mind concocts the illusion that it is a separate observer of something observed.

This is just endlessly repeating a mystical narrative that consists of open-ended statements, asserted as if they were true, while still evading the question of how this true reality is seen and what makes it true, and please may we have an explanation of how mind is ‘self-created’, since the concept of personal identity cannot be demonstrated and you are claiming that all phenomena is an illusion?

“Put a stop to your grasping mind and just see, without seeking something to see.” This quasi-religious exhortation is just a meaningless allusion where you mean to propose something but are unable to do so explicitly because you don’t know yourself how such a thing might be done. At best it is just an empty assertion, or at its worst an example of mystical/religious conjuration

It is neither psychology, philosophy, faith, nor metaphysics: it is simply and purely the seeing of reality as it actually is. Can you do that without forming a single psychological, philosophical, metaphysical, or doctrinal thought, and just see? Nothing more; nothing less.[/COLOR]

But you’ve not experienced this so-called true reality yourself and, even if you thought you had, you’ve no way to determine its truth or to know whether it was a dream. And your own argument counts against you in this respect, for you claim that the experiential world is an illusion but you are unable to show conclusively that life is not just a dream - or even that you are not dreaming now! So with no way to establish that what you supposed to be true reality is not an illusion, the need for the belief-as-faith is made apparent.