The Debate of God.

Looncall · Jul 12, 2012

godnotgod said:
re: Ultimate Reality, for you Science-minded people:

"If we propose an observer-independent reality, we must realize that an observer-independent reality is not testable, so according to the current principles of science, we cannot say it exists: the scientific conclusion would be that an observer-independent reality does not exist.

It is an interesting paradox that science finds itself in. Science says that there is an observer-independent reality and you do not need a conscious observer to manifest reality. At the same time without an observer this reality is not testable, so it cannot exist."

Deepak Chopra
*****
[youtube]nIRPba6bO0A[/youtube]
Is There An Ultimate Reality? Ask Deepak! - YouTube

This seems to ignore inter-observer consilience.

Deepak Chopra? Really? (derisive laughter)

Looncall · Jul 12, 2012

godnotgod said:
OK. I'll try to have a conversation with you.

Firstly, what is meant here by 'Absolute', is a condition or state which has no opposite. It is not a relative state, such as relative joy and relative sorrow, or good and evil, for example.

In our ordinary reality, the world is made up of separate 'things', which are relative to one another. But it is in this very relationship that they are NOT separate things, but together all make up just one single reality, to which there is no comparison.

What do you mean by "relative to one another"?

You seem to think that a set cannot have members. I think you are making a big deal of something trivial.

Secondly, it is independent of the phenomenal world, or the universe as manifested or created. So, if the phenomenal world as we know it, including ourselves, were to vanish altogether in the next moment, is there something against which it is manifested, ie; a background, or field, which is a constant, a something that is a no-thing, that has no beginning or end; that is 'always so'.

You need to establish that there is any such "background", and you need to establish it with evidence. Otherwise it is just empty speculation.

I find phrases such as "a something that is no-thing" very ridiculous. Have you been hanging around philosophy departments tainted with post modernism?

As for 'making sense', it is oxymoronic to expect the rational mind, which encapsulates what it knows via concept and idea, to 'make sense' of that which is beyond such encapsulation. It has been said that the only way one can speak of the Absolute is in negative terms, since any positive description is such an encapsulation.

How can you know, or even meaningfully speak of, something beyond (whatever that means) concepts or ideas? See above comment about post modernism.

"Let's suppose you were able, every night, to dream any dream you wanted to dream, and that you could for example have the power to dream in one night 75 years worth of time. Or any length of time you wanted to have. And you would, naturally, as you began on this adventure of dreams, fulfill all your wishes. You would have every kind of pleasure you could conceive. And after several nights of 75 years of total pleasure each, you would say 'Well, that was pretty great. But now let's have a surprise. Let's have a dream which isn't under control, where something is going to happen to me that I don't know what it's going to be.' And you would dig that, and come out of it and say 'That was a close shave, now wasn't it?' Then you would get more and more adventurous, and you would make further and further gambles as to what you would dream, and finally you would dream where you are now. You would dream the dream of the life that you are actually living today. That would be within the infinite multiplicity of the choices you would have. Of playing that you weren't God. Because the whole nature of the godhead, according to this idea, is to play that he's not. The first thing that he says to himself is 'Man, get lost,' because he gives himself away. The nature of love is self-abandonment, not clinging to oneself....See? And that keeps things moving. That's the nature of life.

So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama. When you come into the theater, there is an arch, and a stage, and down there is the audience. Everybody assumes their seats in the theater, gone to see a comedy, a tragedy, a thriller, whatever it is, and they all know as they come in and pay their admissions, that what is going to happen on the stage is not for real. But the actors have a conspiracy against this, because they're going to try and persuade the audience that what is happening on the stage IS for real. They want to get everybody sitting on the edge of their chairs, they want you terrified, or crying, or laughing. Absolutely captivated by the drama. And if a skillful human actor can take in an audience and make people cry, think what the cosmic actor can do. Why he can take himself in completely. He can play so much for real that he thinks he really is. Like you sitting in this room, you think you're really here. Well, you've persuaded yourself that way. You've acted it so damn well that you KNOW that this is the real world. But you're playing it...."

You are the which than which there is no whicher.

excerpted from 'The Nature of Consciousness', by Alan Watts

I do not have much respect for this sort of hand-waving. I prefer that people simply say what they mean.

Thief · Jul 12, 2012

godnotgod said:
I can see by your answer that you do not understand the question. Let me try again:

Exactly what is it about a child's mind that qualifies him for entry into Paradise, according to Yeshua?

Exactly that quality you refuse to display....
and your continual repeat of your question is that quality that the Carpenter was criticizing.

His own disciples were making display of character that heaven does not approve.

godnotgod · Jul 12, 2012

Thief said:
Exactly that quality you refuse to display....

That is what the question pertains to. So what is the quality in question about that I 'refuse to display', as if I am somehow being judged here.

...and your continual repeat of your question is that quality that the Carpenter was criticizing.

His own disciples were making display of character that heaven does not approve.

And what 'quality' and 'character' do you refer to? That they chewed gum in class? You neither seem to understand the question, nor are you capable of answering it.

One more time, then we'll have to move on:

What is it about 'becoming as little children' that qualifies them for entry into Paradise, according to Yeshu?

You stated 'learning' as a different type than the learning of adults. So what is it about the learning attitude of a child that is his ticket to heaven? You claim learning is the key, but you don't seem to be willing or able to say why and how.

If you don't understand the question, then please say so, and I will be happy to try to expand it.

Here is a clue: 'Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.' Matthew 18:4:

Does the 'lowly position' have something do do with the way a child learns, or does it imply something else?

godnotgod · Jul 12, 2012

Looncall said:
This seems to ignore inter-observer consilience.

Of course it does! Any 'inter-observer consilience'* would not be Ultimate Realilty, but perceptual reality, brain-dependent, and species-specific, all of which are local, personal views, and not a singular, universal, impersonal view.

Deepak Chopra? Really? (derisive laughter)

Yes, Chopra, really. To what does your derision apply?

He'll probably have last laugh on you, which would be the Ultimate Reality, :biglaugh:LOL

*con·sil·ience : the linking together of principles from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory

godnotgod · Jul 12, 2012

Looncall said:
What do you mean by "relative to one another"?

You seem to think that a set cannot have members. I think you are making a big deal of something trivial.

All 'things' in the universe are interconnected and interdependent. That is why it is called a 'uni-verse'. In order to know the location of a particular object, point, or place, for example, you must have a reference, and that is usually other 'things', or some sort of system of coordinates. This makes all things 'relative to one another'. There are no 'separate' things. That such separation exists is only a concept within the mind. Reality does not conform to such arbitrary concepts.

It's not that it's a 'big deal'; it's merely that it is the way things actually are, and how they are is that they are relative to each other, and being so, are one, constituting the universe as we know it.

You asked me to try to explain what I meant by 'Ultimate Reality', and I am trying to lay the groundwork for you. OK?

You need to establish that there is any such "background", and you need to establish it with evidence. Otherwise it is just empty speculation.

All things that we perceive in the phenomenal world are seen, heard, tasted, felt, or otherwise sensed against some sort of background, or field. Sound, for example, cannot be heard unless it's corresponding background, silence, is also present. In fact, there is no sound without silence. They are together one event, though our thinking mind separates them into two phenomena. The background to our experience is usually not taken into account or even noticed, as we are focused on the foreground, and the background is usually passive. All solids in space exist against the background of space; you cannot have solids without space. But all of these observations/experiences are relative, and therefore, dual, in nature. The phenomenal world is one that is subject to Time, Space, and Causation. The question at hand is, is there a background against which the true nature of the dual world can be understood, one that is Changeless, Infinite, and Undivided, and which has no opposite; one that is an Absolute, or Ultimate Reality?

I find phrases such as "a something that is no-thing" very ridiculous. Have you been hanging around philosophy departments tainted with post modernism?

If the phenomenal world is the world of 'things', how is it that you determine their 'thing-ness'?

What is ridiculous is the very notion of 'things' as being real, which is a philosophical speculation. In Reality, there are no such 'things', as Reality is not philosophy.

How can you know, or even meaningfully speak of, something beyond (whatever that means) concepts or ideas? See above comment about post modernism.

That is the problem. If an Ultimate Reality outside the sphere of conceptual thought is true, then it is obvious that conceptual thought must be abandoned. What takes its place is direct intuitive insight, without thought. In order for this to occur, the chatter of monkey mind must first be subdued. Because monkey mind vies for dominance, the intuitive mind goes undetected, along with what it knows.

I do not have much respect for this sort of hand-waving. I prefer that people simply say what they mean.

He absolutely did, but he had to tell it to you in a way that your rational mind could understand. He told you that we are dreaming, and playing the cosmic game of hide and seek, and that upon awakening, we'll find ourselves exactly where we are at the present moment.

confused453 · Jul 12, 2012

godnotgod said:
Is there an Ultimate Reality, an Absolute not dependent upon the phenomenal world?

The problem is that as soon as you are tired of the Ultimate Reality, you'll start to think that there should be the Ultimater Reality. Imagination is limitless. You can imagine limitless possibilities.

Here's something that might be of interest: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A theory about anything that could have happened, did happen in another universe, no matter how small or big it is. This could be the reason why we can think limitless things no matter how smart or "unrealistic"/stupid they are. Limitless universes, limitless possibility

Now, how would you distinguish Ultimate Reality from "phenomenal world" anyway? Absence of trouble?
This is our reality

you'll just have to face it. And when you find the Ultimate Reality, I hope you'll publish your findings in some scientific journal

for the world to see.

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

confused453 said:
The problem is that as soon as you are tired of the Ultimate Reality, you'll start to think that there should be the Ultimater Reality. Imagination is limitless. You can imagine limitless possibilities.

Here's something that might be of interest: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A theory about anything that could have happened, did happen in another universe, no matter how small or big it is. This could be the reason why we can think limitless things no matter how smart or "unrealistic"/stupid they are. Limitless universes, limitless possibility

Now, how would you distinguish Ultimate Reality from "phenomenal world" anyway? Absence of trouble?
This is our reality you'll just have to face it. And when you find the Ultimate Reality, I hope you'll publish your findings in some scientific journal for the world to see.

That is unnecessary, as the Ultimate Reality is right under your nose. In fact, it IS your nose!

re: 'Ultimater Reality': let's not be silly, shall we? By definition, nothing can be beyond the Ultimate Reality.

confused453 · Jul 13, 2012

Everything you know is based in this reality. "Every thing" to you personally, is what your brain interprets those things to be. And then somehow, you decided if it's true or not. Probably based on pleasant or unpleasant, little to do with truth.

In order for you to know the world as it is, you'd have to be directly connected to it. Like a digital connection, instead of analog one in electronics. I have no clue if it's possible, or if I'm really making sense. Reality is brain's analog interpretation of the universe. The Ultimate Reality could be the digital interpretation, which could be studied by using science? mmm... :beach:

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

confused453 said:
Everything you know is based in this reality. "Every thing" to you personally, is what your brain interprets those things to be. And then somehow, you decided if it's true or not. Probably based on pleasant or unpleasant, little to do with truth.

In order for you to know the world as it is, you'd have to be directly connected to it. Like a digital connection, instead of analog one in electronics. I have no clue if it's possible, or if I'm really making sense. Reality is brain's analog interpretation of the universe. The Ultimate Reality could be the digital interpretation, which could be studied by using science? mmm... :beach:

Maybe the connection you need to be aware of is not via "DA BRAIN", DUH!, but via of some other pathway of which your brain knows virtually nothing about. But since the brain is always chattering about with its thinking process, it is drowning out the real source you are in need of accessing. In order to realize this state of consciousness, one must first quiet down the monkey mind chatter of the brain, and this can be accomplished via meditation, or yoga, for example. One thing should be made clear: you cannot do this via of thinking about it with your rational mind, but you also cannot do it via of suppressing thought, as that will only make it worse! You simply have to allow the mud to settle to the bottom of the pond of itself.

You are already connected to Ultimate Reality, but your brain is falsely telling you that you are disconnected from it; that you are a separate ego called "I" which acts upon the world. That is an illusion.

Ultimate Reality is not within the sphere of scientific study, as science is concerned with the behavior/characteristics/prediction of the phenomenal world, and not its true nature.

confused453 · Jul 13, 2012

godnotgod said:
Maybe the connection you need to be aware of is not via "DA BRAIN", DUH!, but via of some other pathway of which your brain knows virtually nothing about. But since the brain is always chattering about with its thinking process, it is drowning out the real source you are in need of accessing. In order to realize this state of consciousness, one must first quiet down the monkey mind chatter of the brain, and this can be accomplished via meditation, or yoga, for example. One thing should be made clear: you cannot do this via of thinking about it with your rational mind, but you also cannot do it via of suppressing thought, as that will only make it worse! You simply have to allow the mud to settle to the bottom of the pond of itself.

Ultimate Reality is not within the sphere of scientific study, as science is concerned with the behavior/characteristics/prediction of the phenomenal world, and not its true nature.

Personality, knowledge and abilities are based on the development of the brain. If there's a brain damage, a person may easily lose his/her identity. If there's no brain activity, a person is declared dead with no possibility to return to life. I tried looking for a single definition for meditation, and found as many definitions as there're for god. But as far as I understand, it's a form of relaxation with intense thinking about a particular subject. Being aware is an ability of the brain in the first place.

"...connection you need to be aware of is not via "DA BRAIN"" does not make sense, just like a believer asking to prove that there's no god.

Tell me, what benefit is there from this Ultimate Reality to anybody or anything?

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

confused453 said:
Personality, knowledge and abilities are based on the development of the brain. If there's a brain damage, a person may easily lose his/her identity. If there's no brain activity, a person is declared dead with no possibility to return to life.

I did not say the brain is not important; I said it is not the center of consciousness we all think it to be. Everything we know about to operate in this world is stored in the brain. That way, we don't have to continually re-learn the same lessons over and over again. But it is consciousness that comes first; that uses the brain, and not the other way around. If there is no brain activity, that can be due to other factors, such as lack of oxygen or blood flow, so death may not be due to the lack of brain activity, but due to the absence of oxygen to breathe or blood flow to the brain due to some large wound to the body.

I tried looking for a single definition for meditation, and found as many definitions as there're for god. But as far as I understand, it's a form of relaxation with intense thinking about a particular subject. Being aware is an ability of the brain in the first place.

That is erroneous. Meditation is first of all, not thinking, but concentration. In Zen, this concentration is called 'one-pointedness of mind'. It is also not a form of relaxation, as you claim, but relaxation does come about as a function of meditation. You are aware due to consciousness, but consciousness is not a product of the brain, as is commonly thought, esp by science. The brain is a product of consciousness, and is a tool utilized by consciousness. That the brain is a product of consciousness has been demonstrated by studies of monks who have meditated for years, in which it has been shown that their cerebral cortexes are thicker than those of ordinary people.

Meditation is a means by which the thinking mind can be quieted down, while at the same time awakening the intuitive mind, which is the pathway to Higher Consciousness and Enlightenment.

"...connection you need to be aware of is not via "DA BRAIN"" does not make sense, just like a believer asking to prove that there's no god.

What I am saying is that the brain is not the center of consciousness it tells us it is; there are other centers in the body, such as the heart center; the solar plexus; the hara, just below the navel, etc. In kundalini yoga, there is a power dormant at the base of the spine which, when awakened, travels up through the spinal cord, illumining the cranium, resulting in Enlightenment. Compared to ordinary conscious thought, it is far more powerful. All I can tell you is that, as long as you are a brain-centered ego, you will most likely never grow in the spiritual sense. For some, the thinking mind must exhaust itself in total frustration before any real progress can even begin. The Zen koan, or riddle, is designed to short-circuit the rational mind, causing it to implode, whereby universal consciousness comes flooding in.

Tell me, what benefit is there from this Ultimate Reality to anybody or anything?

It is what is responsible for you're being alive and conscious in this very moment, without having to interfere in your life. Ultimate Reality, sometimes called Tao, permeates every aspect of life and death, just as the sea is both inside and outside of the fish, without the fish even being aware of its presence. It is what sustains and nourishes everything, without drawing attention to itself, without getting in the way. It dispels all delusion and suffering, and is the source of Absolute Joy.

Looncall · Jul 13, 2012

godnotgod said:
I did not say the brain is not important; I said it is not the center of consciousness we all think it to be. Everything we know about to operate in this world is stored in the brain. That way, we don't have to continually re-learn the same lessons over and over again. But it is consciousness that comes first; that uses the brain, and not the other way around. If there is no brain activity, that can be due to other factors, such as lack of oxygen or blood flow, so death may not be due to the lack of brain activity, but due to the absence of oxygen to breathe or blood flow to the brain due to some large wound to the body.

That is erroneous. Meditation is first of all, not thinking, but concentration. In Zen, this concentration is called 'one-pointedness of mind'. It is also not a form of relaxation, as you claim, but relaxation does come about as a function of meditation. You are aware due to consciousness, but consciousness is not a product of the brain, as is commonly thought, esp by science. The brain is a product of consciousness, and is a tool utilized by consciousness. That the brain is a product of consciousness has been demonstrated by studies of monks who have meditated for years, in which it has been shown that their cerebral cortexes are thicker than those of ordinary people.

Mediation is a means by which the thinking mind can be quieted down, while at the same time awakening the intuitive mind, which is the pathway to Higher Consciousness and Enlightenment.

What I am saying is that the brain is not the center of consciousness it tells us it is; there are other centers in the body, such as the heart center; the solar plexus; the hara, just below the navel, etc. In kundalini yoga, there is a power dormant at the base of the spine which, when awakened, travels up through the spinal cord, illumining the cranium, resulting in Enlightenment. Compared to ordinary conscious thought, it is far more powerful. All I can tell you is that, as long as you are a brain-centered ego, you will most likely never grow in the spiritual sense. For some, the thinking mind must exhaust itself in total frustration before any real progress can even begin. The Zen koan, or riddle, is designed to short-circuit the rational mind, causing it to implode, whereby universal consciousness comes flooding in.

It is what is responsible for you're being alive and conscious in this very moment, without having to interfere in your life. Ultimate Reality, sometimes called Tao, permeates every aspect of life and death, just as the sea is both inside and outside of the fish, without the fish even being aware of its presence. It is what sustains and nourishes everything, without drawing attention to itself, without getting in the way. It dispels all delusion and suffering, and is the source of Absolute Joy.

What evidence do you have that any of this is true?

It looks like just another woo-peddling scam to me.

Looncall · Jul 13, 2012

godnotgod said:
Of course it does! Any 'inter-observer consilience'* would not be Ultimate Realilty, but perceptual reality, brain-dependent, and species-specific, all of which are local, personal views, and not a singular, universal, impersonal view.

Yes, Chopra, really. To what does your derision apply?

He'll probably have last laugh on you, which would be the Ultimate Reality, :biglaugh:LOL

*con·sil·ience : the linking together of principles from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory

Chopra is a master of word salad. Don't be taken in by his guff.

Looncall · Jul 13, 2012

<snip>

godnotgod said:
All things that we perceive in the phenomenal world are seen, heard, tasted, felt, or otherwise sensed against some sort of background, or field. Sound, for example, cannot be heard unless it's corresponding background, silence, is also present. In fact, there is no sound without silence. They are together one event, though our thinking mind separates them into two phenomena. The background to our experience is usually not taken into account or even noticed, as we are focused on the foreground, and the background is usually passive. All solids in space exist against the background of space; you cannot have solids without space. But all of these observations/experiences are relative, and therefore, dual, in nature. The phenomenal world is one that is subject to Time, Space, and Causation. The question at hand is, is there a background against which the true nature of the dual world can be understood, one that is Changeless, Infinite, and Undivided, and which has no opposite; one that is an Absolute, or Ultimate Reality?

< snip>

This nonsense. Even if there were no silence, sound would still be sound. The air would still vibrate.

You still have not provided evidence for your "background". Where's the beef?

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

Looncall said:
What evidence do you have that any of this is true?

It looks like just another woo-peddling scam to me.

Then stay away!

I understand precisely what Chopra is communicating.

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

Looncall said:
Chopra is a master of word salad. Don't be taken in by his guff.

What the enlightened know appears as word salad to the unenlightened.

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

Looncall said:
<snip>

< snip>

This nonsense. Even if there were no silence, sound would still be sound. The air would still vibrate.

Click to expand...

What is nonsense is that, while you acknowledge vibration, which is crest and wave, you ignore the necessity of silence. Use your head: what do you suppose sound is heard against? Other sounds? Come now. Just as you cannot have all light without shadow, you cannot have all sound without silence.

You still have not provided evidence for your "background".

Click to expand...

I am not here to provide 'evidence', as that is only within the sphere of Logic and Reason. Ultimate Reality is beyond Logic and Reason.

Do you agree so far with the argument that a background, or field exists for what we experience in the phenomenal world, as I have outlined?

Thief · Jul 13, 2012

godnotgod said:
That is what the question pertains to. So what is the quality in question about that I 'refuse to display', as if I am somehow being judged here.

And what 'quality' and 'character' do you refer to? That they chewed gum in class? You neither seem to understand the question, nor are you capable of answering it.

One more time, then we'll have to move on:

What is it about 'becoming as little children' that qualifies them for entry into Paradise, according to Yeshu?

You stated 'learning' as a different type than the learning of adults. So what is it about the learning attitude of a child that is his ticket to heaven? You claim learning is the key, but you don't seem to be willing or able to say why and how.

If you don't understand the question, then please say so, and I will be happy to try to expand it.

Here is a clue: 'Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.' Matthew 18:4:

Does the 'lowly position' have something do do with the way a child learns, or does it imply something else?

Why not just go for it and say what's on your mind?

Then...if it falls short...I'll rebuttal.

godnotgod · Jul 13, 2012

Thief said:
Why not just go for it and say what's on your mind?

Then...if it falls short...I'll rebuttal.

Stop your trickery! Just answer the question you claim you understand the answer to! Otherwise, why not just go for it and admit you don't know? You are the one who brought up the words of the prophets as primary, but apparently you fail to have an understanding as to what they mean.

The Debate of God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Active Member

Thou art That

Active Member

Thou art That

Active Member

Thou art That

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Rogue Theologian

Thou art That