What is a real God?

[blü 2]

You are literally willing to concede that until something is discovered that something doesn't exist.

Unless you have a basis for saying something has objective existence, you have no basis for saying something has objective existence. I proposed the test, satisfactory demonstration. You don't have a test?

Just think of the Earth for example. For a long time everyone thought the Earth was flat as they had no reason to think otherwise (all their observations lended support to its flatness) yet after it was discovered with further, better obervations that the Earth was a globe (according to your theory) the flat Earth stopped existing and the globe was born.

It wasn't overnight, but yes, that's how truth works. Truth in such matters is our best opinion for the time being, the people best qualified to be satisfied with the demonstration. The Higgs boson wasn't real, its reality was not a truth, until the LHC produced the satisfactory demonstration; and after that, but at no time before, it was true.

It's only logical to say that the Earth was always a globe even back when noone knew its true shape and that the only thing that changed after its discovery was its epistemic status with respect to humanity.

That's true for us in 2018. Depending on where in the world you might be, it wasn't true until Eratosthenes or it still isn't true.

So what's your test for whether something's true as at this date, or not?

And how do you tell whether something has objective existence or not?

And what makes you think truth can ever be absolute, so that what we know is true is THE truth forever?

 

[ERLOS]

Not if the rules of physics simply describe properties of energy in the relationships of its various forms.
Either the contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero was uniform (=mass-energy for present purposes) or the contents of the BB at T0 was a salad. Perhaps there are sound reasons why it couldn't be uniform, but I'm not aware of them, so Occam tells me to go with uniform.
What does 'disembodied' mean here? Real chemical elements in an unfamiliar formation, or something along those lines? Or something that doesn't have objective existence and therefore can only be imaginary?
At present, the only place we know where life of any kind exists is right here on earth. I've come across the opinion that the number of stars in the universe may be between 1 and 100 septillion (10^24-10^26). It may be that you need opportunities like that ─ plus some 14 bn years to play with ─ for coincidences to chain chemistry into becoming biochemistry to becoming intelligent biochemistry.

So if we turn out to be the best it ever gets, yup, it's a pity we're not collectively more constructive. But (a) if there's a superbeing in charge of the project then its success or failure is to the credit or blame of that superbeing, and (b) if there's no such superbeing, it's not to our credit or blame that we're here, but we'd be dumb not to try to do something better with it.

So we may be able to agree on at least that much.

Thank you.

It's the 'superbeing' I've the problem with. Why does it have to be an anthropomorphised 'being'?

Our perceptions are limited to our five human senses and scientific extensions, radio and infra-red telescopes, etc.

Whatever exists outside the five senses obviously cannot be proved by them.

Which I agree brings us to the point we may agree to differ, lol.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, I know that most folks who do not want to venture beyond empiricism go by assumptions only. You are honest about it. Most are not because most even do not know the assumptions.

You seem to imply that you don't make assumptions. Then how do you demonstrate eg that reason is a valid tool ─ or if you see it otherwise, isn't a valid tool?

OTOH, some of us say that there is no need for assumption. The question of God can be taken up once the question of "What is this I?" is solved.

So what test are we using here to determine what's true? The side of the bed we got out of this morning? Where the number of vowels in the sentence is odd or even? How's it done?

 

[Apologes]

It wasn't overnight, but yes, that's how truth works. Truth in such matters is our best opinion for the time being, the people best qualified to be satisfied with the demonstration. The Higgs boson wasn't real, its reality was not a truth, until the LHC produced the satisfactory demonstration; and after that, but at no time before, it was true.

So you agree that your view is incoherent and absurd and then go on to claim that "that's how truth works". Given how such an attitude lays at the crux of your argument, it's highly unlikely it's going to persuade anyone with even a basic grasp of philosophy.

That's true for us in 2018. Depending on where in the world you might be, it wasn't true until Eratosthenes or it still isn't true.

At this point I'm not sure if you're a positivist, a relativist or just mumbling whatever comes to your mind.

So what's your test for whether something's true as at this date, or not?

And how do you tell whether something has objective existence or not?

And what makes you think truth can ever be absolute, so that what we know is true is THE truth forever?

So you are a relativist. Take a moment and reflect then on your proposition "The truth cannot be absolute." and tell me why anyone not in your camp should take it seriously. Or is that just another absurdity you're willing to embrace for whatever sake.

 

[blü 2]

Correct. This is not my imagination. I met God in Dec 2005. It is Being that communicates with your spirit when awake and in dreams

So God is real! Has objective existence! Is not imaginary! And so when you met [him] you took plenty of photos and you can show them to me! Excellent! I've been wondering what [he] looks like, so most grateful if you post them here.

For those in northern hemisphere, who had never been to Australia, when there were no airplanes, internet, photography, they wouldn't know that Australia is real. Does it mean it does not exist?

Well, I seem to recall that the hypothesis that a Great South Land existed in the southern hemisphere, the counterpoise of the northern continents, had been around for at least a couple of hundred years before Australia-as-such was noted on European maps. But at no time in Europe was it true to say that Australia existed until Europeans discovered that it did.

Brain is just an instrument that God uses. If He uses our brain as instrument, this is His Grace.

I'll reserve my reply to that till after I've seen your photos of God.

 

[blü 2]

So you are a relativist. Take a moment and reflect then on your proposition "The truth cannot be absolute." and tell me why anyone not in your camp should take it seriously. Or is that just another absurdity you're willing to embrace for whatever sake.

Just give me an example of an absolute truth and I'll recant.

 

[Apologes]

Just give me an example of an absolute truth and I'll recant.

How about your very challenge to propose a property that would make for a distinction between God and a superscientist? If there is nothing objectively true then why should you insist that others do so? Why think there is a distinction in the first place since it's just "true for you" (whatever that means)?

To spell it out, if you're a relativist then your very view collapses on itself. It's self-refuting.

 

[Gallowglass]

1. Real
2. Sentient
3. Self-aware
4. Existing in and able to traverse multiple dimensions and/or planes/and or worlds, depending on which cosmological theories are correct.
5. Able to influence those dimensions/planes/worlds while remaining unseen if desired, but also capable of becoming present in one for as long or short a time as they like.
6. Not injured or diminished by the ridiculous notions of Tinkerbell theology. (Neil Gaiman, if for some reason you ever come across this forum, I love your writing, but popularising that dreck was the WORST.)

I may come up with more later.

 

[blü 2]

How about your very challenge to propose a property that would make for a distinction between God and a superscientist? If there is nothing objectively true then why should you insist that others do so?

Of course things are objectively true. I've explained to you at length what I mean by objective reality, and what I mean by true.

 

[`mud]

And still....not getting out of the box !

 

[blü 2]

How about your very challenge to propose a property that would make for a distinction between God and a superscientist?

I asked, what is 'godness' if God is real / has objective existence?

If you noticed a definition of 'godness' offered in this thread that could apply to a god with objective existence but not to a superscientist, grateful if you draw it to my attention, because I missed it.

To spell it out, if you're a relativist then your very view collapses on itself. It's self-refuting.

Please spell out, step by step, how my view is 'self-refuting'.

And could I please have an example of an absolute truth?

And your test to determine whether something has objective existence or not?

 

[`mud]

Absolute truth....relative to what....what is the `standard` in place here ?
What's the `relativity` in use ? Given a truth as such...how does one balance to another truth ?
Psychologically, what is a `truth` in view, how does one recognize it, what `ruler` is in use ?
I seem to get caught up in the differences between samples here, the standards don't balance.
Ethics and principles don't come into view as `wieghts` on the scales, and the fulcrum is bent.
One must allow oneself to become a part of the solution doesn't one ?
How does one veiw the resulting `truth` without bias, or without morals involved in the balance ?
The resulting balance of the weighing is bound to be warped with this approach, doesn't it ?
Maybe I'm out of my rhelm here, but ...there are no absolute truths.

 

[atanu]

You seem to imply that you don't make assumptions. Then how do you demonstrate eg that reason is a valid tool ─ or if you see it otherwise, isn't a valid tool?

I surely do not imply that I do not make assumption. My assumption is pretty much the same as yours that intellect is a valid tool. But while you assume that intellect somehow came up from inert materials, In that case such a created intellect cannot unravel its own source. Furthermore, the empiricist proposition "knowledge is derived from sense-experience" can not be proved by sense-experience and hence has a limitation.

I OTOH believe that intellect is reflection of a fundamental nature of existence that we call 'awareness' that is unborn and uncreated. Particular reflections (intellects) are particular instances wherein the 'knowledge' competence is the true component, whereas the particulars change.

My reasoned belief is again based on an understanding that primeval teaching of Vedanta and other scriptures that have stood the test of time do not lie. Furthermore, the scriptures/teachers have given reasonably good prescriptions for us to test the veracity of the teachings that the forms-names have no independent objective existence.

So what test are we using here to determine what's true? The side of the bed we got out of this morning? Where the number of vowels in the sentence is odd or even? How's it done?

See above. The test of mango is in actual tasting.

 

[blü 2]

I surely do not imply that I do not make assumption. My assumption is pretty much the same as yours that intellect is a valid tool. But while you assume that intellect somehow came up from inert materials, In that case such a created intellect cannot unravel its own source.

Why can't a brain use its (biochemical) brain functions to unravel the evolution of nervous systems, spinal chords, nerve centers, reptile, mammal, Homo and human brains?

What evidence do you have that contemporary human brain research is enabled by anything other than biochemical human brains and the tools they produce?

Furthermore, the empiricist proposition "knowledge is derived from sense-experience" can not be proved by sense-experience and hence has a limitation.

My assumptions that a world exists external to the self and that our senses are capable of informing us of that world indeed arise from the necessity to assume: no argument from evidence can be made that doesn't contain the assumption that what is to be shown is already correct.

I'd add that humans have evolved to be born with a whole range of instincts already tailored to surviving as a Terran gregarious mammal, and that these include built-in interpretations of reality. The instincts to breathe, to suck, to swallow, to make eye contact, to imitate expressions, movements and sounds, to turn and look where the carer looks or points, to grasp, to taste, to categorize concepts and assemble language from datum after datum provided by the carer, later the matters of sexuality, bonding and breeding, on and on. The ability to turn sense-experience into knowledge is built in.

I OTOH believe that intellect is reflection of a fundamental nature of existence that we call 'awareness' that is unborn and uncreated. Particular reflections (intellects) are particular instances wherein the 'knowledge' competence is the true component, whereas the particulars change.

I understand that this is your view, and that many share it or versions of it.

I simply can't see how it could be a true statement about reality. For instance, why can't it be used to detect, describe and share remote information about reality? With connection to so vast an internet built in, why would the self need to rely on the senses primarily, or indeed at all?

It brings up the question, why have a body at all? What's the body for when all the important action is out there in the ether, not in the material world where if you can't breathe real air for a couple of minutes you'll probably die?

My reasoned belief is again based on an understanding that primeval teaching of Vedanta and other scriptures that have stood the test of time do not lie. Furthermore, the scriptures/teachers have given reasonably good prescriptions for us to test the veracity of the teachings that the forms-names have no independent objective existence.

Have there been any scientific studies on establishing a physical description of the world in the terms the Vedanta (&c) sets out? If so, what did they find? If not, why not? ─ it would surely be relevant to know if (to use the phrase I used before) they make true statements about reality, no?

 

[atanu]

Why can't a brain use its (biochemical) brain functions to unravel the evolution of nervous systems, spinal chords, nerve centers, reptile, mammal, Homo and human brains?

What evidence do you have that contemporary human brain research is enabled by anything other than biochemical human brains and the tools they produce?

Ha. Ha. This is like asking for verbal poof of taste of mango instead of directly partaking it. (On the contrary I will request you to state what evidence you have that the intellect is fuelled by biochemical processes? Do we have any objective example?)

See, unlike many, I will not offer you any empirical proof that the all pervading awareness powers all our experiences. There cannot be any proof or rebuttal without the consciousness.

Instead Vedanta asks "Who will know the knower?" Is it really possible? The only way to know the non dual is to be the non dual. All other ways lead you to duality. You have experience of unconscious non dual experience of deep sleep. But if one has the experience of the non dual while retaining the awareness one will have the proof. It is like actually eating the mango and not asking for verbal proof of its taste. I do believe what Vedic sages, Shankara, Buddha, or other mystics have taught us.

Furthermore, intellectual theoretical rambling is self defeating towards the true knowledge of the non dual, since the only goal of the knowledge of the non dual is to attain peace-bliss. Knowledge of properties of objects can never give you that.

My assumptions that a world exists external to the self and that our senses are capable of informing us of that world indeed arise from the necessity to assume: no argument from evidence can be made that doesn't contain the assumption that what is to be shown is already correct.

Instead of assuming, Vedanta asks "Who will know the knower?" Is it really possible?

You assume a truth and then superimpose your assumption on all sensual perceptions -- as is evident in the paragraph below.

I'd add that humans have evolved to be born with a whole range of instincts already tailored to surviving as a Terran gregarious mammal, and that these include built-in interpretations of reality. The instincts to breathe, to suck, to swallow, to make eye contact, to imitate expressions, movements and sounds, to turn and look where the carer looks or points, to grasp, to taste, to categorize concepts and assemble language from datum after datum provided by the carer, later the matters of sexuality, bonding and breeding, on and on. The ability to turn sense-experience into knowledge is built in.

It is more correct to say that the existence of all things (and ideas) depends upon recognition by an imputing consciousness. No object or no theory can be proven to be existing apart from the witnessing awareness.

I understand that this is your view, and that many share it or versions of it. I simply can't see how it could be a true statement about reality. For instance, why can't it be used to detect, describe and share remote information about reality? With connection to so vast an internet built in, why would the self need to rely on the senses primarily, or indeed at all?

Again there is an assumption that it is the physical bodies that are doing the 'knowing'.

All experiences are in the unified awareness -- whether the experience is of awareness of a body or its absence or of apparent shattered unitive consciousness as in schizophrenia etc..

It brings up the question, why have a body at all? What's the body for when all the important action is out there in the ether, not in the material world where if you can't breathe real air for a couple of minutes you'll probably die?
Have there been any scientific studies on establishing a physical description of the world in the terms the Vedanta (&c) sets out? If so, what did they find? If not, why not? ─ it would surely be relevant to know if (to use the phrase I used before) they make true statements about reality, no?

Easy answer is that the body is Kurukshetra or Jerusalem, the field wherein the eternal peace-bliss is to be realised and re-realised. And the actual answer is that the body is never not pure awareness -- the infinite-existence-consciousness.

 

[blü 2]

Ha. Ha. This is like asking for verbal poof of taste of mango instead of directly partaking it.

No, it's like asking for the structure of the taste bud and the biochemical reactions of the taste buds to mango and the description of the neural system which transmits those reactions to the brain and the manner in which the brain associates those signals with the word, and visual cues, for 'mango'.

(state what evidence you have that the intellect is fuelled by biochemical processes? Do we have any objective example?)

Of course we do. First the obvious: no brain, no brain function, no thought or consciousness, no nothing. Brain impaired by genetics, trauma, disease, drugs, then brain function impaired correspondingly.

Second, mapping of the brain to locate which parts of the brain do what; an understanding of the interconnectivity of neurons, and how memories are stored and recalled ─ the whole scheme of projects of brain research.

Third, the success of particular drugs in treating particular brain disorders, not least imbalances of the natural chemicals of the brain eg the success of serotonin reuptake inhibitors to treat particular kinds of depression.

Whereas ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ you don't even have an analysis of what the brain actually is, how it actually works, how its disorders might be ameliorated or cured, and so on. I don't dismiss the ability of eg meditation to have health benefits eg reduce blood pressure, but the 'how' has been left to science.

See, unlike many, I will not offer you any empirical proof that the all pervading awareness powers all our experiences. There cannot be any proof or rebuttal without the consciousness.

There cannot be consciousness without the biochemistry. The biochemistry is necessary. I say it's sufficient. Can you offer any demonstration ─ that is, provide examinable evidence ─ that it's not?

I do believe what Vedic sages, Shankara, Buddha, or other mystics have taught us.

On what basis? In particular, what test do you use to determine whether any particular statement is true?

Again there is an assumption that it is the physical bodies that are doing the 'knowing'.

What else could it be? All the alternatives lack objective existence, hence are imaginary.

If they weren't imaginary, you could show them to us.

 

[paarsurrey]

If we ever encounter a particularly powerful being who can do things we can’t – create universes, destroy worlds, read thoughts, restore the dead to life, convert water to wine, become invisible, act remotely, grant wishes &c – what test will tell us whether that being is God (or, a god) or not?

What, in real terms, is ‘godness’? What real quality does God have that a superscientist doesn’t? What objective test must we apply to resolve the question?

There are many aspect to it,
1. G-d can create things from nothing*, the superscientist cannot. Can a superscientist, please?

Regards

_________
*[6:102]The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
[6:103]Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/6:102

 

[blü 2]

G-d can create things from nothing*, the superscientist cannot.

A point worth considering. Thanks.

First (given that there's a real God, one with objective existence), do we agree that the only thing God needed to create from nothing was whatever was in the Big Bang?

Second, if there was nothing before God created something, then there were no dimensions, no mass-energy, no forces &c, hence no time or place. So how could a real God exist in the absence of dimensions? Surely only an imaginary God could do that?

Third, how could any God, let alone a real one, bring about change in the absence of time? Without time, everything is as frozen, as incapable of alteration, as in a photograph.

 

[`mud]

It's more like an image of a mirror of a mirror of a photograph graphically opposed.
Ahhhh….imagination of images of the nothingness and `God`,
and the singularity, contained by...….?
Cyclic isn't it ?

 

[atanu]

No, it's like asking for the structure of the taste bud and the biochemical reactions of the taste buds to mango and the description of the neural system which transmits those reactions to the brain and the manner in which the brain associates those signals with the word, and visual cues, for ‘mango’.

Agreed. All this work, however, will not inform you of the taste of mango.

Of course we do. First the obvious: no brain, no brain function, no thought or consciousness, no nothing. Brain impaired by genetics, trauma, disease, drugs, then brain function impaired correspondingly.

First. No. Actually without consciousness a brain will not be even seen/known. OTOH, we know that dead bodies/dead brains do not exhibit consciousness.

Second, mapping of the brain to locate which parts of the brain do what; an understanding of the interconnectivity of neurons, and how memories are stored and recalled ─ the whole scheme of projects of brain research.

Third, the success of particular drugs in treating particular brain disorders, not least imbalances of the natural chemicals of the brain eg the success of serotonin reuptake inhibitors to treat particular kinds of depression.

Second, map is not the terrain. A map of orgasmic experience is not the orgasm.

Third, you confuse mood with the faculty that enables the mood to be discerned. In your model, there is nothing at the substratum of intellect other than brain chemicals. But who will control and direct those chemicals and how? In your own example it is you that knows serotonin — and not other way around.

None of your 3 points indicate that biochemistry in brain fuels the discerning power. Serotonin does not tell us what it does. It is you who do it.

Whereas ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ you don't even have an analysis of what the brain actually is, how it actually works, how its disorders might be ameliorated or cured, and so on. I don't dismiss the ability of eg meditation to have health benefits eg reduce blood pressure, but the 'how' has been left to science.

Science is not the sole property of materialists. There is nothing that stops me to study all categories of this waking world. The point is that even 100% knowledge of all objects of this world will not tell me a bit about the ‘knower consciousness’ and will not give me mastery over the dancing monkey called mind.

There cannot be consciousness without the biochemistry. The biochemistry is necessary. I say it's sufficient. Can you offer any demonstration ─ that is, provide examinable evidence ─ that it's not?

There can be no concept of biochemistry without life-consciousness. Have you seen any consciousness in a dead body/dead brain that has myriad of biochemical reactions going on? Do we understand what life is?

On what basis? In particular, what test do you use to determine whether any particular statement is true?

My own experiences and verbal reports of many mystics.

What else could it be? All the alternatives lack objective existence, hence are imaginary.

If they weren't imaginary, you could show them to us.

No. A dead body has no consciousness. So that which animates a body also powers the discerning power in it.

It is correct to say that the existence of all things depends upon recognition by an imputing consciousness. In any case whatsoever, no object can be proven to be existing apart from the witnessing awareness, including the picture of a brain.