Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[PureX]

A lot of them are. I'm talking about atheists, though.

But objecting to some forms of religious artifice is not much of an argument for atheism. Any at all, really.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But objecting to some forms of religious artifice is not much of an argument for atheism. Any at all, really.

Unfortunately, that means it's exceedingly easy for us to get lost in a discussion/debate about the realness/falseness of the artifice, while ignoring completely the mystery, itself, and how profoundly that mystery affects us.

Backtracking a little since I forget. What artifices or deceiving (if that's the right term) do both parties have when discussing the realness and falseness of this mystery?

When one talks about the existence of god, in these cases it's a debate between one who believes one exist and one does not (no one ignores here. That's just as well saying theists are ignoring the fact there is no god). Usually, it's because theists talk about god as a person not an abstract mystery. Usually atheists challenge the anthropomorphize version of god rather than a mystery-and it seems it backfires on theists when what they mean is not what they expressing. Atheists are arguing what they are expressing not what they mean.

So, I'm at a loss of how one can deceive the other when both are talking pass each other.

 

[PureX]

Most theists are deists? I've got the impression most theists (I've spoken with on/offline) believe god has a personal relationship with them.

Most theist believe in a "deity", meaning a conscious entity of some sort. It is that consciousness that they feel they can 'relate' to.

Most atheists are materialists? So, is there a silent minority, I guess, who do not believe in deities yet hold a spiritual life?

Most atheists do not accept the concept of any form of disembodied "spirit".

Well, theism and atheism are positions on god's existence by strict definitions of the terms. So, if someone says they are a theist, we can assume they believe in deit(ies) and if someone says they are atheist we can "only" assume that they do not.

It would be unwise to make these assumptions given that not all theists are deists, nor all atheists, materialists. Keep in mind these are INDIVIDUAL CHOICES, not to be confused with the philosophical proposition.

Energy can be tested.

Actually, it cannot. We don't even know what 'energy' is. All we know of are some of it's many physical manifestations. "Energy", like "God", refers to a great phenomenological mystery; the source and substance of which we have no knowledge of.

Of course theists know god exists for themselves but why do they assume that because it exists for themselves as an subject experience it's like science that it's supposed to exist for all people "if they don't reject it (as they say)"?

The GREAT MYSTERY EXISTS for all of us, because we are human. And it affects all of us, as well. It's that simple. For we humans, this great mystery of existence is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

We can take out religion and talk about just god's existence. The problem is I don't know what god is.

I just told you. The trick is in figuring out how to discuss it without falling into pointless debates over the way people choose to conceptualize and relate to this mystery in their minds.

So, if it's not the christian or abrahamic god, what is the philosophical discussion based on that we both be on the same terms of knowing the definitions before discussing it?

We all face this mystery. And we all react to it however we choose. And we are all then being defined by how we are choosing to react to it. Seems to me there is much to discuss, especially in a philosophical context, here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Most theist believe in a "deity", meaning a conscious entity of some sort. It is that consciousness that they feel they can 'relate' to.

True. When I for example ask what god is I'm asking what an entity is that people relate to rather than a mystery.

Most atheists do not accept the concept of any form of disembodies "spirit".

Many of us don't understand what spirit means in terms of an entity (not mystery) that one can relate to. So, in that respects disembodies and what disembodies is irrelevant until the basics need to be addressed-hopefully, by the people who have those definitions not from the people who lack them.

It would be unwise to make these assumptions given that not all theists are deists, nor all atheists, materialists. Keep in mind these are INDIVIDUAL CHOICES, not to be confused with the philosophical theist proposition.

Yes. It's easier to talk about it as a philosophical theist proposition, or by the definition of the term rather than use actual theists and atheists to make discussion. There's so many ways people define their theism and atheism (deism-people don't have a personal relationship with their gods), it's hard to talk about it without talking pass each other.

Actually, it cannot. We don't even know what 'energy' is. All we know of are some of it's many physical manifestations. "Energy", like "God", refers to a great phenomenological mystery; the source and substance of which we have no knowledge of.

What energy are you referring to?

There are different types of energy: heat, gravitational, chemical, kinetic, etc. All of these actually exist and can be tested. A mystery, by definition of the term, cannot. We can't dedicate "any" characteristics of this mystery because, by definition, it's something we don't know about.

How do you know the characteristics and definition of a mystery? (Am I missing something?)

The GREAT MYSTERY EXISTS for all of us, because we are human. And it affects all of us, as well. It's that simple. For we humans, this great mystery of existence is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

I'm coming from mystery as "something difficult to impossible to explain." Mystery isn't a good word to use if you know it is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

Saying that the great mystery affects all of us is not the same as explaining as how it does to validate that statement. How does it?

I just told you. The trick is in figuring out how to discuss it without falling into pointless debates over the way people choose to conceptualize and relate to this mystery in their minds.

You'd need to use a different word than mystery and god. Mystery implies something you don't know of. Many people who are not familiar with god will use that definition as a point of reference. The word god is not a good word because it has too much baggage without a agreed on definition to even have a good debate.

We all face this mystery. And we all react to it however we choose. And we are all then being defined by how we are choosing to react to it. Seems to me there is much to discuss, especially in a philosophical context, here.

The best way I can interpret this is we all are faced with the mystery of life. Things we are uncertain of. We are challenged by the unknown and that's why we try to find our place in the universe and/or study it because we feel uncomfortable with not knowing.

How did you get all present, all knowing, and all powerful from this, is my question.

 

[PureX]

True. When I for example ask what god is I'm asking what an entity is that people relate to rather than a mystery.

For most theists, the way they conceptualize that mystery, so that they can 'relate' to it, is as a conscious entity. Even though they may also realize that this is just a convenient bit of conceptual artifice on their part. But even f it is artifice, that doesn't make the artifice wrong.

Here is an example.

People often take hallucinogenic or psychotropic drugs to receive messages from their gods. Just because the drugs are the physical cause of the 'encounter' they experience, does not mean that what they encountered was not god. It only means that they needed those drugs to open them up to experience the encounter. The drugs are just the enabler.

In the same way some people need drugs to experience God, others need religious icons. And others may need something else. But none of this means that what they encounter is not God. It just means that these particular people need these particular facilitators to enable them to experience such an encounter.

Many of us don't understand what spirit means in terms of an entity (not mystery) that one can relate to. So, in that respects disembodies and what disembodies is irrelevant until the basics need to be addressed-hopefully, by the people who have those definitions not from the people who lack them.

Once we accept the reality of existential mystery, we have to also accept that there will be aspects of existence that we can experience, and yet cannot satisfactorily explain. People can experience God, and yet cannot satisfactorily explain that experience to others, or even to themselves.

What energy are you referring to?

There are different types of energy: heat, gravitational, chemical, kinetic, etc.

These are not "different types of energy". They are different ways that energy is expressed. But what energy is, and what causes it to express itself as is does, is a profound mystery to us.

All of these actually exist and can be tested.

The manifestations, yes. The source, no.

A mystery, by definition of the term, cannot. We can't dedicate "any" characteristics of this mystery because, by definition, it's something we don't know about.

How do you know the characteristics and definition of a mystery? (Am I missing something?)

We can recognize the LACK of information, even without having the information that we lack. Having no information where information should be, is how we know we are missing information. Even when we don't know what information we're missing.

Saying that the great mystery affects all of us is not the same as explaining as how it does to validate that statement. How does it?

How we respond to the great existential 'mystery of being' determines who we are in the world, and how we relate to it. We, in fact, 'create ourselves', by how we choose to live with the mystery of our own existence.

I think I'm being pretty clear about this?

The best way I can interpret this is we all are faced with the mystery of life. Things we are uncertain of. We are challenged by the unknown and that's why we try to find our place in the universe and/or study it because we feel uncomfortable with not knowing.

People react to this mystery in many different ways. Some get angry, some get willfully ignorant, some get sad and feel hopeless, some get inquisitive and see "truth", others get frustrated and seek distraction, some even try and run away, but can't ... and yet each of these choices is determining who we are, and who we are becoming. The mystery is 'creating us' by allowing us to create ourselves in response to it. Pretty amazing, that. Don't you think?

How did you get all present, all knowing, and all powerful from this, is my question.

The mystery is: the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. (Omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence.)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For most theists, the way they conceptualize that mystery, so that they can 'relate' to it, is as a conscious entity. Even though they may also realize that this is just a convenient bit of conceptual artifice on their part. But even f it is artifice, that doesn't make the artifice wrong.

Here is an example.

People often take hallucinogenic or psychotropic drugs to receive messages from their gods. Just because the drugs are the physical cause of the 'encounter' they experience, does not mean that what they encountered was not god. It only means that they needed those drugs to open them up to experience the encounter. The drugs are just the enabler.

Kind of like a placebo affect? A lot of people would take offense if the source of their messages from god comes from anywhere but god himself. In other words, the drug is god not just the experience from it.

In the same way some people need drugs to experience God, others need religious icons. And others may need something else. But none of this means that what they encounter is not God. It just means that these particular people need these particular facilitators to enable them to experience such an encounter.

True. Thats in a good amount of religions that physical spiritual connection. Since believers cannot explain the spiritual (I think you're the closest I came across, to tell you honestly) could they through their relationship with the physical?

Once we accept the reality of existential mystery, we have to also accept that there will be aspects of existence that we can experience, and yet cannot satisfactorily explain. People can experience God, and yet cannot satisfactorily explain that experience to others, or even to themselves.

A mystery is just a lack of what we don't know. Lack of knowledge makes X a mystery to us. That which can't be explained is very mundane. Mystery is that which we dont know. It's a state of lack of knowledge, for lack of better words. Take the ends of the universe. It's a mystery, yes, but how does this lack of knowledge have more importance to a person and even more so how can they experience lack of knowledge?

These are not "different types of energy". They are different ways that energy is expressed. But what energy is, and what causes it to express itself as is does, is a profound mystery to us.

The manifestations, yes. The source, no.

Energy as in science rather that spiritual. Heat exists. We feel it, "see" it, and the world cannot exist without it. We can detect this with our five senses. It's something that can be explained, tested, and observed all around the world. It's not subjective. I see no connection between energy of this type, science, and god, mystery, or experience and manifestations thereof.

We can recognize the LACK of information, even without having the information that we lack. Having no information where information should be, is how we know we are missing information. Even when we don't know what information we're missing.

We only have information that is available to us. Everything else we don't know exist that's why it's called a mystery. I'm not sure how spirituality, or experience of this lack of information, is possible. You can experience what exists but not the mystery of what we know so far does not.

How we respond to the great existential 'mystery of being' determines who we are in the world, and how we relate to it. We, in fact, 'create ourselves', by how we choose to live with the mystery of our own existence.

I think I'm being pretty clear about this?

You'd have to use a more specific word than mystery. You're attaching characteristics to a "void." How does mystery of being determine who we are in the world and our relations to it?

How do you live the mystery of your existence?

I can't figure how to ask because the connection sounds very much like spiritual philosophical jargon. To explain these things to someone who doesn't believe god exists (if mystery is god), there needs to be lay terms to describe this.

The problem is that many theist think people who don't believe in the supernatural in general are ignorant or rejecting the "mystery of their being." When in fact each person sees reality differently. Some attach mystical definitions to it and others do not. I'm sure there are spiritual experiences many atheist experience without the jargon.

People react to this mystery in many different ways. Some get angry, some get willfully ignorant, some get sad and feel hopeless, some get inquisitive and see "truth", others get frustrated and seek distraction, some even try and run away, but can't ... and yet each of these choices is determining who we are, and who we are becoming. The mystery is 'creating us' by allowing us to create ourselves in response to it. Pretty amazing, that. Don't you think?

The mystery is: the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. (Omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence.)

Not knowing about the reality of life or mystery of it can cause a lot of positive or negative experiences. Some people have nervous breakdown some time in their life because of it. I can see why you'd say its personified to relate to it, but you speak of it as if that personification is the same as mystery "literally" has and does things.

I don't see mystery creating us. I see why people have emotions about it, but creating us?

How does mystery do anything?

 

[PureX]

Kind of like a placebo affect? A lot of people would take offense if the source of their messages from god comes from anywhere but god himself. In other words, the drug is god not just the experience from it.

But the presumption that these are mutually exclusive causes is both irrational, and biased. When we open a door, and the wind rushes in, then we close the door and the wind stops. This does not mean that the door caused the wind. It only means that the open door enabled the wind's entrance, when the closed door disabled it.

Logically, we should presume that fasts, prayers, trances, drugs, and whatever else people use to open themselves up to experience their God, to be enablers of the experience, not the cause of the experience.

Since believers cannot explain the spiritual (I think you're the closest I came across, to tell you honestly) could they through their relationship with the physical?

When people convey their personal experiences, we should take them at their word. But a the same time, realize that their experiences will be unique to them, and will be interpreted by them, just as uniquely. This does not make their experiences untrue. It just makes them not universally applicable. Whatever "God" is, it's far greater and far more complex than we can imagine. So that our cognition of it, what little of it we might experience, is not likely to be 'universal', but very subjective and very localized, like a single ant's view (and cognitive grasp) of an entire planet. If you asked an ant in a tropical jungle, and an ant on a mountain in Alaska to define the planet, they would give wildly differing definitions. Because they will have had wildly different experiences of that planet.

As do we, when we're attempting to define our very subjective and limited experience and ubderstanding of the vast mystery we call "God".

A mystery is just a lack of what we don't know. Lack of knowledge makes X a mystery to us. That which can't be explained is very mundane. Mystery is that which we don't know. It's a state of lack of knowledge, for lack of better words. Take the ends of the universe. It's a mystery, yes, but how does this lack of knowledge have more importance to a person and even more so how can they experience lack of knowledge?

But this lack of knowledge is of the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists, including ourselves. There is no aspect of our lives that this lack of knowledge doesn't effect.

Heat exists. We feel it, "see" it, and the world cannot exist without it.

Heat is an effect of energy. Feeling the effect is not equal to knowing the cause. Knowing OF the cause is not equal to knowing THE cause. When someone we love dies, we feel bad. That's an effect. Knowing that we feel bad because someone we loved, died, does not explain, anything. It does not explain why we love, or why we die, or why we suffer from these. The mechanisms of circumstance are not real answers. And that leaves us with the unknown that we humans have to face every day of our lives: that will cause us great pain, or great pleasure, and give us purpose, and then take it away. That unknown that owns and controls our bodies and our souls, is called "God".

We only have information that is available to us. Everything else we don't know exist that's why it's called a mystery. I'm not sure how spirituality, or experience of this lack of information, is possible.

I just explained how it's possible. And we ALL experience it, regardless of what we "believe" about it.

How do you live the mystery of your existence?

I have no choice but to live it, because the mystery is omni-present, and omni-potent, and omni-cognizant (from my very limited human perspective). I can't even get in the car and drive to the store and know that some horrific, inexplicable disaster will not strike before I get there. We live our whole lives at the mercy of this great mystery. The only way to avoid it is to become insane, and hide in delusions of our own imperviousness. (Which we all do often enough.)

I can't figure how to ask because the connection sounds very much like spiritual philosophical jargon. To explain these things to someone who doesn't believe god exists (if mystery is god), there needs to be lay terms to describe this.

Again, the mystery is everywhere, all the time, and pervades everything. We just need to find the courage to open our eyes and face just how much we don't know. If that doesn't put the "fear of God" in us, then nothing will, and we will be lost to our own insanity.

I don't see mystery creating us. I see why people have emotions about it, but creating us?

Let's say you suddenly awaken to find yourself clinging to the side of a steep cliff face. And there is nowhere for you to go but up, or down. And either way you're going to have to learn how to climb.

So you do. And as you do, your body and your mind begin to take on the characteristics of a climber. Because that's what you are becoming.

In this way, the mountain, just by it's existence, has caused you to "re-create" yourself, by how you chose to negotiate it's existence, and your relationship to it.

The Great Existential Mystery that we call "God" does the same thing, to all of us, simply because it's there. And because it's there, we have to decide how we are going to respond to it, and then as we enact our response, doing so changes us. It re-defines us. It re-creates us, through our participation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But the presumption that these are mutually exclusive causes is both irrational, and biased. When we open a door, and the wind rushes in, then we close the door and the wind stops. This does not mean that the door caused the wind. It only means that the open door enabled the wind's entrance, when the closed door disabled it.

Logically, we should presume that fasts, prayers, trances, drugs, and whatever else people use to open themselves up to experience their God, to be enablers of the experience, not the cause of the experience.

If one believes that god is outside themselves taking care of them, they would personify that cause (hence creator) a person that interacts with them and created them and so forth. So, for example, if someone experiences love and they believe god is love, god manifest itself from the outside in. So, if I got the wind analogy correct, the wind would be god. If inside the home is hot and the person needed fresh air, they'd open the door to experience fresh air both as the experience and the source of it.

When people convey their personal experiences, we should take them at their word. But a the same time, realize that their experiences will be unique to them, and will be interpreted by them, just as uniquely. This does not make their experiences untrue. It just makes them not universally applicable. Whatever "God" is, it's far greater and far more complex than we can imagine. So that our cognition of it, what little of it we might experience, is not likely to be 'universal', but very subjective and very localized, like a single ant's view (and cognitive grasp) of an entire planet. If you asked an ant in a tropical jungle, and an ant on a mountain in Alaska to define the planet, they would give wildly differing definitions. Because they will have had wildly different experiences of that planet.

We don't have a basis of comparison. Each experience is unique in itself, but if the basis of comparison is "mystery" there's really nothing I can think of that unifies their experiences if they all call it the same word: god.

So, if five people experience this mystery they call god, but their experiences are different, it's best to value their individual experiences but if they all use the same term, its confusing because mystery is no basis of comparison. By definition, no one knows anything about it.

It's interesting that it is referred to as universal, though. The same "spark of life" in all people and all living things etc regardless our unique experiences etc. It is seen that those who don't understand this despite their religion is ignoring the evident. Maybe instead of seeing it as a universal spark as abrahamics tend to view it but individual sparks as easterners view it.

As do we, when we're attempting to define our very subjective and limited experience and ubderstanding of the vast mystery we call "God".

This mystery by definition can't be explained yet you talk of it as if you know it has a place in ones experiences and even more so characteristics that describe it.

How is that possible? ....

But this lack of knowledge is of the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists, including ourselves. There is no aspect of our lives that this lack of knowledge doesn't effect.

.... How is this so?

Heat is an effect of energy. Feeling the effect is not equal to knowing the cause. Knowing OF the cause is not equal to knowing THE cause. When someone we love dies, we feel bad. That's an effect. Knowing that we feel bad because someone we loved, died, does not explain, anything. It does not explain why we love, or why we die, or why we suffer from these. The mechanisms of circumstance are not real answers. And that leaves us with the unknown that we humans have to face every day of our lives: that will cause us great pain, or great pleasure, and give us purpose, and then take it away. That unknown that owns and controls our bodies and our souls, is called "God".

You're using energy as analogy comparison rather than comparing the nature of it (gravitational, heat, kinetic, etc) with god. Okay. Makes more sense.

The unknown is just that unknown. It doesn't control us (it's not a thing or entity). I'd say it's the other way around. People don't know how to deal with the unknown so they try to find means of solace in uncertainty and that solace is the effect of god and the source the unknown.

While I get the idea, I'm still loss with the logic. How does the unknown "do" anything on its own?

I just explained how it's possible. And we ALL experience it, regardless of what we "believe" about it.

I'd say we all are confronted with the unknown and people deal with it in different ways. The question isn't the confrontation with the unknown, but the personification of it that "some" people do to feel comfortable with it. It's one thing to personify but much more confusing to give it a name (god), give it dictations, and gives it characteristics (all knowing, etc).

(I quote everything and go from top to bottom so anything above I answered may be a repeat in the following quote replies. It's easier to keep track than trying to figure it all at one time.)
Do you see the difference in what I'm asking?

I have no choice but to live it, because the mystery is omni-present, and omni-potent, and omni-cognizant (from my very limited human perspective). I can't even get in the car and drive to the store and know that some horrific, inexplicable disaster will not strike before I get there. We live our whole lives at the mercy of this great mystery. The only way to avoid it is to become insane, and hide in delusions of our own imperviousness. (Which we all do often enough.)

This is a generalization, though. People confront the mystery (if one likes) in various ways and some "run away screaming" and others are indifferent to it. Personally, I don't see the mystery of my being and life as something "grand" or something greater than myself. An expansion of sorts. There's no specific definition of explanation of how it relates to me etc because it's a void. So, all I can do is say what I experience with uncertainty but I can't describe it as all knowing and greater etc. That is what's confusing me with others view of uncertainty.

Again, the mystery is everywhere, all the time, and pervades everything. We just need to find the courage to open our eyes and face just how much we don't know. If that doesn't put the "fear of God" in us, then nothing will, and we will be lost to our own insanity.

I guess in less religious terms, if we can't handle uncertainty, we will go insane, right?

Let's say you suddenly awaken to find yourself clinging to the side of a steep cliff face. And there is nowhere for you to go but up, or down. And either way you're going to have to learn how to climb.

So you do. And as you do, your body and your mind begin to take on the characteristics of a climber. Because that's what you are becoming.

In this way, the mountain, just by it's existence, has caused you to "re-create" yourself, by how you chose to negotiate it's existence, and your relationship to it.

True. How does this existence or revelation "do" anything?

It's one thing to talk about the experience but another to talk about it as a person. Of course, the person personifies it to relate to it. However, when discussing it with someone who is not on the same footing, that person would need to explain how they connect mystery to an action. The belief is subjective in nature and needs a common language to discuss it for any understanding to take place.

The Great Existential Mystery that we call "God" does the same thing, to all of us, simply because it's there. And because it's there, we have to decide how we are going to respond to it, and then as we enact our response, doing so changes us. It re-defines us. It re-creates us, through our participation.

That sounds more like personal belief rather than generalization. Of course, all of us face uncertainty. To call it god puts more baggage to it that many theists are not aware of.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

... which is generally nonsense.



Again: this is nonsense. People don't worship, pray to, or build their lives around "mystery."

You don't get sectarianism around mystery: "'God' is an unknowable blank for me, representing nothing but a feeling of awe, but what I know about this unknowable thing tells me that what that other group claims about this unknowable thing is wrong."


The way theists approach religion and the decisions they make tell us plenty about what they believe "God" is, thinks, and wants for humanity.

Edit: any theist who uses terms like "revelation," "God's will," or "God's plan" is telling you that their God is at least somewhat knowable.



... or unless we recognize this mischaracterization as rubbish.


There are plenty of other differences between religion and science.


This is modern revisionism, and still a fringe viewpoint. The major religions held that God was a real figure, as capable of real thoughts and actions as you and me, until our understanding of the world showed how this assumption conflicted with how things actually work.

Different denominations - and different theists - tackle this problem in different ways. Some just reject the science that conflicts with their traditional beliefs. Some go for a "God of the Gaps" approach.

... and some go for an approach like the one you're talking about: they redefine "God" as something that can't be falsified by rational inquiry, like "love," "mystery," "the universe," "awe," etc.

Here's another example
What is your best evidence for the nonexistence of God?

The argument doesn't need to be phrased as I did in the OP. Though, people use the comparison-monsters, unicorns, pixies, etc-as an example of god's existence or non-existence. Some use it to say both are fanatical claims and others use the same comparison differently.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@PureX In other words, it sounds like believers are looking from the outside in. How uncertainty relates to them. I'm speaking from the inside out. How we relate to uncertainty. In the first, people can personify it and give it tradition to separate "it" from themselves. So they won't go insane and experience uncertainty because it becomes the "other." While the latter lets you confronts uncertainty because you can't hide from it. It's in you not confronting you. No longer a personification but your actual identity (mystery of your being?) is that uncertainty.

The key is when you (people in general) think of it greater than yourself and put higher importance to this uncertainty either challenging you from the outside or from the inside, you're limiting yourself. Basically, you're degrading yourself at the expense of something you can't understand. Making yourself a slave to it, per say.

Instead of being a slave to uncertainty or seeing uncertainty as "something that chains you (devaluing yourself in front of it) or challenges you," make it your friend. If separation is what you need, try to equalize it. Bring peace.

Then when you're confronted with mystery, you won't go insane trying to figure it out.

 

[PureX]

If one believes that god is outside themselves taking care of them, they would personify that cause (hence creator) a person that interacts with them and created them and so forth.

Yes, "one" could choose to believe that. While another could choose a different way of conceptualizing God. This is why it's pointless to get caught up in "one's beliefs" if we want to discuss the idea and reality of theism as a philosophical proposition, as opposed to an individual's religious belief.

So, for example, if someone experiences love and they believe god is love, god manifest itself from the outside in.

But love also comes from within us, so that analogy doesn't hold.

Each experience is unique in itself, but if the basis of comparison is "mystery" there's really nothing I can think of that unifies their experiences if they all call it the same word: god.

The awareness of the Great Mystery of Being, and our experience of that awareness, is the commonality of what we all call "God". How we each choose to respond to that experienced awareness is what is unique.

It's interesting that it is referred to as universal, though. The same "spark of life" in all people and all living things etc regardless our unique experiences etc. It is seen that those who don't understand this despite their religion is ignoring the evident. Maybe instead of seeing it as a universal spark as abrahamics tend to view it but individual sparks as easterners view it.

It's a mystery. So we can choose to "see it" however we want. Nevertheless, it is the same existential 'mystery of being', to all of us.

This mystery by definition can't be explained yet you talk of it as if you know it has a place in ones experiences and even more so characteristics that describe it.

How is that possible? ....

The "we" is humanity. And I am human. This is how I know that the mystery is universal, even though I can't know how we will each cognate and respond to our particular experience of it. We could say the same thing of love, or of justice, or of beauty, or even of sex. All humans experience these things, but we do not all cognate and respond to the experience in the same ways.

The unknown is just that unknown. It doesn't control us (it's not a thing or entity).

We are forced to respond to it by our human nature. Humans survive and thrive on Earth by knowing 'how things work', so that we can control them to our own advantage. So when we are confronted by an unknown, it frightens us, and frustrates us, because we have no control of it. And that need to control, and inability to do so, forces us to respond to it in some way.

Some of us invent knowledge that we don't actually possess, to eliminate the fear of the unknown. Some of us personify the unknown so we can "win it's benevolence". Some of us try desperately to "figure it out" with science. Some of us try to endlessly distract ourselves by chasing some other goal. People respond in all sorts of ways, but we are all responding to the same problem of the "great unknown". And that problem is our not being in control. "God" is the great mystery of being (the great existential unknown) that we do not control.

While I get the idea, I'm still loss with the logic. How does the unknown "do" anything on its own?

By denying an animal that lives to control, that control.

The question isn't the confrontation with the unknown, but the personification of it that "some" people do to feel comfortable with it. It's one thing to personify but much more confusing to give it a name (god), give it dictations, and gives it characteristics (all knowing, etc).

Why is this "the question" in your mind? People react in all sorts of ways to being denied the ability to control their circumstances by the great unknown. Why is personifying it, in particular, such an issue for you?

People confront the mystery (if one likes) in various ways and some "run away screaming" and others are indifferent to it. Personally, I don't see the mystery of my being and life as something "grand" or something greater than myself.

Well, logically, it is determining your circumstances, and thereby, your well-being, not you. So by definition it is "greater than you are".

An expansion of sorts. There's no specific definition of explanation of how it relates to me etc because it's a void.

But it's not a void. It has content, and apparent purpose. You just don't know what they are.

I guess in less religious terms, if we can't handle uncertainty, we will go insane, right?

Yes, some of us by pretending that there's "nothing there". When in fact there is a great deal, "there". There is the source, sustenance, and purpose of our very being, there, hidden from us.

Of course, all of us face uncertainty. To call it god puts more baggage to it that many theists are not aware of.

"God" is just a word. I'm trying to clarify for you what that word refers to, without all the religious "baggage" that you keep bringing up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"God" is just a word. I'm trying to clarify for you what that word refers to, without all the religious "baggage" that you keep bringing up.

Not everyone can do this unfortunately. Most say "unknown can't be explained in words" and their experiences of it, nonetheless. Honestly, it is what I thought before now. We've always throughout history try to explain what we don't know by (in some cultures not all) trying to find ways to relate to it whether by tradition, word, or maybe just the experience and explanations throughout our actions. I would think after awhile, people would acknowledge this. I do find people get somewhat defensive when their experiences and method of dealing with the unknown is compared to people thousands of years ago who did the same thing in their own way. The "Age of Reason" kind of split that up a bit. Probably where "atheists" came from, so to speak.

Yes, "one" could choose to believe that. While another could choose a different way of conceptualizing God. This is why it's pointless to get caught up in "one's beliefs" if we want to discuss the idea and reality of theism as a philosophical proposition, as opposed to an individual's religious belief.

That makes sense. The only reason I would want to bring up different beliefs is hear their experiences. Though many try to prove the source of their experiences are true and it gets kind of annoying since proving the "unknown" to someone else through, say, evangelization, is really a waste of time if going by this conversation.

But love also comes from within us, so that analogy doesn't hold.

Maybe both?

Since you're seeing the mystery outside in and reflecting on it as part of your being, I'd say the mystery has an affect on you within rather than comes from within, no?

The awareness of the Great Mystery of Being, and our experience of that awareness, is the commonality of what we all call "God". How we each choose to respond to that experienced awareness is what is unique.

Another direction. Why do some people believe others are ignoring this god?

Of course we can say that people face one unknown, but the question is why don't you guys believe some people recognize it but are indifferent to it or face it in away that's not mystical as their religious counterparts?

It's a mystery. So we can choose to "see it" however we want. Nevertheless, it is the same existential 'mystery of being', to all of us.

I guess personally, I wouldn't choose to explain it that way but I understand to an extent nonetheless.

The "we" is humanity. And I am human. This is how I know that the mystery is universal, even though I can't know how we will each cognate and respond to our particular experience of it. We could say the same thing of love, or of justice, or of beauty, or even of sex. All humans experience these things, but we do not all cognate and respond to the experience in the same ways.

True to the latter. I think the "we" since I've been on RF has been shot down. I'd rather say each individual's experience is the source of their experience. So, humanity wouldn't be a common denominator but having "the" experience would be. Not the same source. Not the same experience. But the fact of having that experience seems human not the experience and source of it itself-if going by individuals rather than generalizing the population.

We are forced to respond to it by our human nature. Humans survive and thrive on Earth by knowing 'how things work', so that we can control them to our own advantage. So when we are confronted by an unknown, it frightens us, and frustrates us, because we have no control of it. And that need to control, and inability to do so, forces us to respond to it in some way.

I guess some people I come across get defensive when these things are challenged especially when I see it here on RF. I guess they are still learning how their given method of finding peace to face this unknown they are still trying to find in them security? Whether it be saying "why DON'T you believe?" to justification of their beliefs (confirmed bias) by something tangible outside themselves (the bible for example). It does get irritating, to tell you honestly. Nothing much I can do as long as it's not hurting others in the process.

Some of us invent knowledge that we don't actually possess, to eliminate the fear of the unknown. Some of us personify the unknown so we can "win it's benevolence". Some of us try desperately to "figure it out" with science. Some of us try to endlessly distract ourselves by chasing some other goal. People respond in all sorts of ways, but we are all responding to the same problem of the "great unknown". And that problem is our not being in control. "God" is the great mystery of being (the great existential unknown) that we do not control.

Why do you call mystery "great"?

Why is this your method of dealing with the unknown by positioning and personifying it as an authority of status?

By denying an animal that lives to control, that control.

Sounds more of personification. I see it the other way around. "We" have trouble dealing with the unknow. We may think of it as evil or so have you because of this challenge, but it literally is (metaphorically speaking) indifferent to us. Once we realize that, say before death as many people do, then we're at peace. The "animal" isn't struggling.

Why is this "the question" in your mind? People react in all sorts of ways to being denied the ability to control their circumstances by the great unknown. Why is personifying it, in particular, such an issue for you?

A lot of times I ask because of how it affects other people who don't share another person's views to the point it hurts the other. For example, if parents say that the unknown is evil and their child should be scared of it as well, that does damage to that child. Understanding that relation, if one is in the position, helps understand that human behavior and hopefully help people who have been hurt by this indoctrinated attitude.

Well, logically, it is determining your circumstances, and thereby, your well-being, not you. So by definition it is "greater than you are".

Maybe not greater, just unknown. The unknown "exists." The known exists. We can challenge it as a foe, if one likes but if we see it as a greater enemy then, well, now wonder why people say they are sinners. Change the perspective, maybe the chains will fall off and people can still face the unknown but feel strong doing so. Well. Ideally.

But it's not a void. It has content, and apparent purpose. You just don't know what they are.

In itself, it's just a void. Remember you were talking about personification. We give it context and purpose. It exists without humans. It just is.

Yes, some of us by pretending that there's "nothing there". When in fact there is a great deal, "there". There is the source, sustenance, and purpose of our very being, there, hidden from us.

I think it's more some people are indifferent to it. They don't need to glorify and personify it to know that they fear or are uncomfortable with the unknown. So, it's not pretending. It's just a different way of handling something that for many are religious and others it's not (science, indifference, being in the present moment, so have you).

Why is that hard for some spiritual people to understand?

 

[PureX]

Not everyone can do this unfortunately. Most say "unknown can't be explained in words" and their experiences of it, nonetheless. Honestly, it is what I thought before now. We've always throughout history try to explain what we don't know by (in some cultures not all) trying to find ways to relate to it whether by tradition, word, or maybe just the experience and explanations throughout our actions. I would think after awhile, people would acknowledge this. I do find people get somewhat defensive when their experiences and method of dealing with the unknown is compared to people thousands of years ago who did the same thing in their own way. The "Age of Reason" kind of split that up a bit. Probably where "atheists" came from, so to speak.

These are valid observations.

The only reason I would want to bring up different beliefs is hear their experiences. Though many try to prove the source of their experiences are true and it gets kind of annoying since proving the "unknown" to someone else through, say, evangelization, is really a waste of time if going by this conversation.

Yeah, but I think they are trying to 'prove' it to themselves as much as to you. That doubt brings us fear, because it's the front edge of 'unknowing'. We humans don't like not knowing, because we cannot control what we cannot understand.

Why do some people believe others are ignoring this god?

Some people ARE trying to ignore it (the great mystery of being, referred to as "God"). It's their chosen response to it. But others think this willful ignorance is a poor response, and some of those will say so.

I think the "we" since I've been on RF has been shot down. I'd rather say each individual's experience is the source of their experience. So, humanity wouldn't be a common denominator but having "the" experience would be. Not the same source. Not the same experience. But the fact of having that experience seems human not the experience and source of it itself-if going by individuals rather than generalizing the population.

"Experience" is a complex phenomenon. It's not just shaped by what happens to us. It's also shaped by what we expected to happen, and by why we expected it. Experience, i.e. "what happened"; is not the event, but is our understanding of the event. Experience and cognition are intertwined.

I guess some people I come across get defensive when these things are challenged especially when I see it here on RF. I guess they are still learning how their given method of finding peace to face this unknown they are still trying to find in them security? Whether it be saying "why DON'T you believe?" to justification of their beliefs (confirmed bias) by something tangible outside themselves (the bible for example). It does get irritating, to tell you honestly. Nothing much I can do as long as it's not hurting others in the process.

These are valid observations, I think.

Why do you call mystery "great"?

"Great" meaning that it extends far beyond my own cognitive grasp. And "great" in that it is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that it. How could anything possibly be considered greater than this?

Why is this your method of dealing with the unknown by positioning and personifying it as an authority of status?

Because hidden within this mystery is literally the "author" of all that is. Including me.

Sounds more of personification. I see it the other way around. "We" have trouble dealing with the unknow. We may think of it as evil or so have you because of this challenge, but it literally is (metaphorically speaking) indifferent to us. Once we realize that, say before death as many people do, then we're at peace. The "animal" isn't struggling.

Many religions and philosophies promote this "surrender", as does my own (taoism). It is a surrender to the unknowable. And an acceptance of one's limited place within the whole. And, yes, there is peace in that. Perhaps the only real peace available to us.

A lot of times I ask because of how it affects other people who don't share another person's views to the point it hurts the other. For example, if parents say that the unknown is evil and their child should be scared of it as well, that does damage to that child. Understanding that relation, if one is in the position, helps understand that human behavior and hopefully help people who have been hurt by this indoctrinated attitude.

The response that 'works' for some, does not 'work' for others. We are not all made the same, nor do we all deal with the same conditions. So, I believe, evangelism (pushing our chosen response onto others), is just being selfish and short-sighted. There is no way for us to know what is the best response to "God" for someone else.

The unknown "exists." The known exists. We can challenge it as a foe, if one likes but if we see it as a greater enemy then, well, now wonder why people say they are sinners. Change the perspective, maybe the chains will fall off and people can still face the unknown but feel strong doing so. Well. Ideally.

Humans will remain human. Those chains are intrinsic. And anyway, ultimately, it's ALL unknown to us. As even what we think we know could be completely erased by the many things that we don't know, if we were to find them out. So even what we think we know, isn't really certain. It's just supposition. It's knowledge that isn't really known to be true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah, but I think they are trying to 'prove' it to themselves as much as to you. That doubt brings us fear, because it's the front edge of 'unknowing'. We humans don't like not knowing, because we cannot control what we cannot understand.

It sounds like that's their biggest barrier right there. Getting over that fear and facing the unknown as is not how we want it to be. (Could that be what people mean when they say they "face god" on judgement day?) Of course, that's just theoretically speaking. I guess it's a mix between ego and human nature.

Some people ARE trying to ignore it (the great mystery of being, referred to as "God"). It's their chosen response to it. But others think this willful ignorance is a poor response, and some of those will say so.

Which is sad. It makes it seem that those "who know it" have superiority over those who address it differently. Spiritual ego?

"Experience" is a complex phenomenon. It's not just shaped by what happens to us. It's also shaped by what we expected to happen, and by why we expected it. Experience, i.e. "what happened"; is not the event, but is our understanding of the event. Experience and cognition are intertwined.

True. I like that.

"Great" meaning that it extends far beyond my own cognitive grasp. And "great" in that it is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that it. How could anything possibly be considered greater than this?

Sounds like a choice of interpretation preference rather than a universal law. I try to see things equal to myself rather than above, greater, or authoritative-literally or metaphorically speaking. Saying something is greater than me is belittling who I am (the mystery of my being perhaps). It's literally saying "you're not worthy" and I just don't feel that way. So, to me, it seems healthier to not "authoritize" the unknown. We wouldn't need others to share our greater mystic experience.

Because hidden within this mystery is literally the "author" of all that is. Including me.

That I don't get. Maybe because of the language use to describe it. It's more metaphorical than it is direct.

Many religions and philosophies promote this "surrender", as does my own (taoism). It is a surrender to the unknowable. And an acceptance of one's limited place within the whole. And, yes, there is peace in that. Perhaps the only real peace available to us.

I did post a few videos on surrender. It dawned on me one day "that's" what people meant when it comes to spiritual experiences. I wouldn't say one is limited within the whole. We have our place but not a status. We wouldn't say that the picture of the puzzle is greater than its parts. We'd say the parts and the whole are independent (EDIT: interdependent) of each other. So they are equal regardless if one sees the trees or the forest. They are one (one not greater or mystic).

The response that 'works' for some, does not 'work' for others. We are not all made the same, nor do we all deal with the same conditions. So, I believe, evangelism (pushing our chosen response onto others), is just being selfish and short-sighted. There is no way for us to know what is the best response to "God" for someone else.

True. There is an expectation in society that we "must" have an awe-inspiring moment to find this out. A need for a purpose and its embedded in our cultures (US). Even the mundane as asking a question on RF and instead of answering the question, people want to know WHY first. They want to know the unknown in order to answer the known.

Maybe we'd get to a day we don't need to ask why and just answer the question or accept that it can't be answered (if you get the comparison?).

Humans will remain human. Those chains are intrinsic. And anyway, ultimately, it's ALL unknown to us. As even what we think we know could be completely erased by the many things that we don't know, if we were to find them out. So even what we think we know, isn't really certain. It's just supposition. It's knowledge that isn't really known to be true.

We've been like that for centuries. We think we know and a decade later we find it we don't or its something different than what we expect. In many respects, it's not an issue of believing we know something-especially in regards to physics and mathematics-but using those same criteria for physics and mathematics with things like emotions, religion, and interpretation is where things get muddy.