-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Self Proving
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
Okay, so far you have demonstrated that you, for yourself, believe that what you say is self-proving...which is as far as I can tell, means that those are your basic assumptions, for which you have no evidence, no proof.
So, my question is, "Why do you accept...I am!?"
You seem to accept Genesis as some relevant and very important information about the nature of humans, the world, and deity. I, on the other hand, doubt that it is relevant or important. I certainly don't see it as anything important about the state of the world now. I see all the "movement now" and see that it could regress back to some initial moment...but I see nothing that suggests that spirit was first...
"spirit was first" is not a self-proving statement. Neither is "matter was first." Nor, in fact, that "matter and spirit were concurrently first." Nor, "it is not possible for humans to know for certain whether or not matter, spirit, both, or neither were first...and indeed, whether or not they exist now."
I personally don't have a problem with not knowing, as I am capable of holding two or more contradictory proposals in my mind without blowing up or collapsing into a black hole.
And, as for the statements and stories that you keep referring to, they show every evidence of being made up by humans. But I am capable of reserving my judgment on that point. Why do I doubt those stories? because I am familiar with stories from other traditions that say many other things about matter, spirit, humans, deities, etc. All, just as with Genesis and the Bible, claim or are claimed to be the truth, and even self-proving...the fact is, they are not.
One may assume they are true...or false...but they are not self-proving either way.
godnotgod
Thou art That
But mud: we OURSELVES are the very 'things that persist' along with everything else. You are making those 'things' objects of observation by a separate 'observer', but the susbject/object split is an artificial conceptual framework created by the mind. Such a split does not naturally occur anywhere in the Universe.
If by 'stuff', you mean 'material' stuff, then there is no such 'stuff'. Modern physics, having drilled down into the sub-atomic world, can find no such 'material particles'. What were previously thought to be 'particles', are, in reality, 'bundles of energy' in the Quantum Field. There are no particles. The so called 'material world', which is supposed to be made up of 'particles', is an appearance only, but one that is of a higher caliber than your garden variety illusion. Such 'stuff' can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and felt, 'confirming' it's 'materiality'. We are being fooled by maya.
Perhaps you mean that the body is left behind and consciousness simply goes on existing as it always has. I mean, we DO know that the body dies and undergoes transformation away from its present form, right? It isn't the body that is in a position to leave anything behind other than itself.
So we contain the spirit? How does a material body 'contain' something that is not of a material nature? How does it prevent leaks? Perhaps it is the spirit that envelops the body, and not the other way around.
No. Consciousness is the source of the Cosmos, so it's not so much that 'things' have consciousness, but rather that Consciousness is manifesting itself as 'all things'; as 'The Cosmos'. Science now gives us a clue in finding that there are no material particles, only fields.
So how do you explain the origin of this 'Original Stuff', out of which everything came from, including us?
Well if there are no particles, then where does all this 'Stuff' come from?
Huh?!
godnotgod
Thou art That
I am afraid you are confused between Existence and Being. Who, or what, is this 'I' proclaiming itself to exist, as the cogito ergo sum of Rene Descartes?
Descarte's intent is to declare his EXISTENCE in Space and Time. But Being is not in Space or Time, as when Yeshua declared:
"Before Abraham was, I Am"
Abraham was a creature of Space and Time, as he was born and died. Yeshua is saying that Being, his true nature, is 'not of this world'; that he dwells in this timeless Present Moment, where there is no Time, Space, or Causation.
You are 'allowed' to speak 'I Am' only if you understand its meaning, but that can only happen if you actually experience it firsthand. But you're just latching onto it to reinforce your belief that God exists for reasons having to do with psychological security.
Now, if you truly understand the meaning of 'I Am', you would realize that everyone else is also this 'Am-ness', so there is really no reason to speak these words. Who would you be trying to convince, since their nature too is pure Being? IOW, 'I Am' is Nothing Special; it is the Ordinary of everyday life. Even the nature of dust is Pure Being.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and there never will be.....all we CAN do is think about it
the creation is....as it was.....and is now
it's one or the other
and herein is the problem of convincing you ( and others of similar method).......of anything
godnotgod
Thou art That
'one or the other' is just an idea in your mind, which is creating a subject/object split that sees 'matter' and 'spirit' as two separate realities, when they are actually one reality. Spirit, or Pure Consciousness, is manifesting itself as the material world of forms. This material world of forms arises from the The Formless that is Pure Consciousness, and returns to it. In scientific jargon, Pure Consciousness, or Pure Abstract Intelligence, is The Unified Field, out of which the universe arises, ie 'The Big Bang'.
The Big Bang was an event in Consciousness, which does not exist in Time or Space.
Another way of looking at this unity of 'spirit' and 'matter' is via the statement by the Vedantist mystic, Vivekenanda:
"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and that event I believe to be very close to the declaration......I AM!
1) then there are no self-proving statements...
2) Existence is, and appears to have been different in the past, and looks like it will be different in the future...
3) Only in the false dichotomy you have set up and insist on using...which also contradictions your opening statement here, that there will never be evidence, and all we can do is think about...
4) Yes, you have difficulty convincing others, because your assumptions are not self-proving, nor is your reasoning self-proving...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you know existence was different?......in the past
and you thought about that?
show how ....Someone had to be First is a fail
no supposition
Show how Number One was not alone......in the beginning
LOL. YOU are the one claiming that your suppositions are self-proving. They aren't.
Show that there was a beginning. Show that there was a 'someone' who was alone and preceded and caused 'creation.'
Thief
Rogue Theologian
cause and effect
and dead things do not beget the living
or maybe you would claim....a puddle of mud was your daddy
Nope, neither obvious nor self-proving.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so much for dragging you to the obvious
so much for cause and effect
you can lead a human to statements, but you cannot make them self-proving, nor obvious...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
there are two levels of ignoranceyou can lead a human to statements, but you cannot make them self-proving, nor obvious...
they who are not informed
and they who choose to ignore
the second level is profound
no cure
Yes, and I am informed. That you keep harping on the same un-self-proving and inherently un-obvious arguments suggests that it might be you who is not informed...or that you are choosing to ignore...you just might be an incurable theist!
Given that `God` existed, and was the `first` `God`.
From where in the Cosmos, or void, did `it` come ?
Or, maybe `He` was the only `God` out there !
Now....given that, `He` created Adam, the first ?
And then `He` created Eve, from Adam's rib,
that could of hurt a lot, and then came pain.
Now there were two, and the garden grew,
and the fruit ripened and was eaten whole,
and sin was vested upon them.....
You all know the rest don't you ?
Who was first ? Who cares ! We all will die.
I'll join you all in the Cosmos, if not before !
From where in the Cosmos, or void, did `it` come ?
Or, maybe `He` was the only `God` out there !
Now....given that, `He` created Adam, the first ?
And then `He` created Eve, from Adam's rib,
that could of hurt a lot, and then came pain.
Now there were two, and the garden grew,
and the fruit ripened and was eaten whole,
and sin was vested upon them.....
You all know the rest don't you ?
Who was first ? Who cares ! We all will die.
I'll join you all in the Cosmos, if not before !