The Debate of God.

[Thief]

Taking a stance does not make something real. You keep talking about a 'next life', and I keep asking you to show me why you make that claim, but you never answer the question, except to say that it is a reality. You base such an assertion on the premise that there exists a self that goes on after death. All I am asking you is to show me where this 'self' is located. If there is no such self, then the question is not whether it goes on after death, but whether death is real or an illusion. I can demonstrate that it is an illusion.

And you do realize you are asking for evidence...and there shall be none.
no photos ...no fingerprints...no equations...no repeatable experiments....

I think it altogether unreasonable to assume that ALL 6billion copies of this learning device result in termination ....altogether.

We die...our spirits continue.

Now, if you argue that MOST of us for lack of belief and meditation...fail...
then you might get me to nod my head.

Life in the next world may have requirements.

Discipline as we walk this earth.
More so again....as we walk among angels.

 

[Thief]

In effect, we are dreaming we're awake, but there is still a difference in the nature of the dream when asleep compared to the nature of the dream when awake. What is the nature of that difference?

There are three states of mind that can be recorded by instrument.
When you are awake...when you sleep...when you dream.

Were you going to ask for more evidence?

 

[godnotgod]

And you do realize you are asking for evidence...and there shall be none.
no photos ...no fingerprints...no equations...no repeatable experiments....

This is what I said, in part:

Originally Posted by godnotgod

Taking a stance does not make something real. You keep talking about a 'next life', and I keep asking you to show me why you make that claim, but you never answer the question, except to say that it is a reality. You base such an assertion on the premise that there exists a self that goes on after death. All I am asking you is to show me where this 'self' is located.

So you see, I am not asking for evidence; I am asking you to show me the premise upon which you base your belief in a 'next life'. One such premise must be the idea of the existence of a 'self' which dies and goes on afterwards. But when looked for, no such self can be found. You say there exists such an animal. Where does it dwell? And if you can show it to me, why do you suppose it goes on in perpetuity? If a God exists, everything that he/she/it created is subject to termination. Why are we any different?

I think it altogether unreasonable to assume that ALL 6billion copies of this learning device result in termination ....altogether.

I don't assume anything; it is a 100% consistent reality that we do. To suppose, however, that all 6 billion of us may also not go on after termination is not unreasonable in light of that fact. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying neither that we terminate nor that we go on. I am questioning the existence of a self that can do either, and pointing to the fact that, no matter what we may think or believe, the only reality we know of for certain is that we are here, now. So I am suggesting to you that the reality you imagine to lie in some future time and place is actually at hand in the Present Moment, and that when this is realized, it is seen that life and death are illusions.

We die...our spirits continue.

You don't actually KNOW that. Having said that, SOMETHING may indeed 'continue', or, more accurately, may persist, as that 'something' may have been present before you entered this world, and will be present after you terminate. The problem is that you have attached to that universal timeless something and have personalized it, calling it "I", and therefore making it subject to birth and death in linear time, all of which is an illusion.

Now, if you argue that MOST of us for lack of belief and meditation...fail...
then you might get me to nod my head.

No, not at all. There is no 'requirement' to succeed. You can drink of the mountain spring or you can pass it by. It cares not, and simply goes on bubbling forth. But you cannot drink of it in some future time and place; you can only drink of it here, now, as it is a living thing.

Life in the next world may have requirements.

You are just projecting what you think the requirements are in this world into what you imagine to be the 'next world', when in reality, there is no such thing as 'this world' or 'that world'. There is only one world, and this is it. The idea of 'another world' is a substantive, delusive idea. Why can't you just be here, now, fully and completely, and be fully fulfilled, in the sense that THIS, in fact, is the 'next world' you are waitng for?

Discipline as we walk this earth.
More so again....as we walk among angels.

If you were to actually apply your discipline, it might suggest to you that you sit down and listen instead.

Hint: maybe what you see as 'creation/termination' is nothing more than a stage in the transformation of form. Nothing is ever lost.

 

[godnotgod]

There are three states of mind that can be recorded by instrument.
When you are awake...when you sleep...when you dream.

Were you going to ask for more evidence?

The instrument merely gives us the signs of these states.

I am asking: what happens in your consciousness that tells you the difference between dreaming and wakefulness?

We don't carry around such instruments to tell us this. We already know.

 

[Thief]

The instrument merely gives us the signs of these states.

I am asking: what happens in your consciousness that tells you the difference between dreaming and wakefulness?

We don't carry around such instruments to tell us this. We already know.

The next mystery remains....and is as you might say.

How do we know the difference?
Dead men don't wake up.

So the next life could be a collective dream.

 

[Thief]

This is what I said, in part:



So you see, I am not asking for evidence; I am asking you to show me the premise upon which you base your belief in a 'next life'. One such premise must be the idea of the existence of a 'self' which dies and goes on afterwards. But when looked for, no such self can be found. You say there exists such an animal. Where does it dwell? And if you can show it to me, why do you suppose it goes on in perpetuity? If a God exists, everything that he/she/it created is subject to termination. Why are we any different?



I don't assume anything; it is a 100% consistent reality that we do. To suppose, however, that all 6 billion of us may also not go on after termination is not unreasonable in light of that fact. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying neither that we terminate nor that we go on. I am questioning the existence of a self that can do either, and pointing to the fact that, no matter what we may think or believe, the only reality we know of for certain is that we are here, now. So I am suggesting to you that the reality you imagine to lie in some future time and place is actually at hand in the Present Moment, and that when this is realized, it is seen that life and death are illusions.



You don't actually KNOW that. Having said that, SOMETHING may indeed 'continue', or, more accurately, may persist, as that 'something' may have been present before you entered this world, and will be present after you terminate. The problem is that you have attached to that universal timeless something and have personalized it, calling it "I", and therefore making it subject to birth and death in linear time, all of which is an illusion.



No, not at all. There is no 'requirement' to succeed. You can drink of the mountain spring or you can pass it by. It cares not, and simply goes on bubbling forth. But you cannot drink of it in some future time and place; you can only drink of it here, now, as it is a living thing.



You are just projecting what you think the requirements are in this world into what you imagine to be the 'next world', when in reality, there is no such thing as 'this world' or 'that world'. There is only one world, and this is it. The idea of 'another world' is a substantive, delusive idea. Why can't you just be here, now, fully and completely, and be fully fulfilled, in the sense that THIS, in fact, is the 'next world' you are waitng for?



If you were to actually apply your discipline, it might suggest to you that you sit down and listen instead.

Hint: maybe what you see as 'creation/termination' is nothing more than a stage in the transformation of form. Nothing is ever lost.

As you say...you might partake of the next life or pass it by....
Maybe God doesn't care.

Why should He ...if you don't?

 

[godnotgod]

The next mystery remains....and is as you might say.

How do we know the difference?
Dead men don't wake up.

So the next life could be a collective dream.

THIS life is a collective dream, one in which most of mankind is dreaming of some fantasy of a 'next life'. Don't wait until you're dead to wake up; do it now while you are still alive. It may be the ONLY life you have, with no 'next life' waiting for you. To expect a 'next life' is called gambling.

 

[godnotgod]

As you say...you might partake of the next life or pass it by....
Maybe God doesn't care.

Why should He ...if you don't?

Unlike the cool mountain spring which is available now, and which you can pass up or partake of, there is no 'next life' that we know about for certain. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to drink while you can. Even God might think you a wise fellow to do so.

You may end up jumping into a pool where there is no water in waiting for the 'next life' to come about. TILT! GAME OVER!

 

[cottage]

Whether you believe there are two states or not is not the issue. The issue is that there is something that is different between the two states. What is that something? The moment you call one a 'dream state', you automatically imply an 'awakened state'. What I am saying is that awakening is a matter of degree, so even though you awaken from the Second Level of Consciousness, that of Sleep with Dreams, into the Third Level, that of Waking Sleep, you are still dreaming, but the dream is of a different kind, and you are somewhat more awake than when on the Second Level. Having said that, the awakening that occurs from the Third to the Fourth Level is of a different character altogether, as I have previously described many times.
So never mind that awakening from sleep may also be a dream. I just want to know what the difference between the two states is, and how you are able to detect it.

Belief is the issue! The reason the controversy exists is because we believe there are two conditions: wakefulness and sleep. I’m saying there is no way to conclusively establish that there is such a distinction. And I’m sure you don’t need me to inform you that the given instance of two opposites does not imply their existence. The very idea of the five levels of sleep can be dreamt, as can any other psychological theory together with every conceivable experience. And anyway, according to your argument, the levels of sleep are mere phenomena. So once again you’ve fallen into self-contradiction by calling upon the illusory experiential world in order to argue for features in the experiential world!

 

[cottage]

I see you are trying to be clever, but it fails, since the analogy of 'next life' and 'Absolute' is illogical, as 'next life' is after death, whereas 'Absolute' is immediately present and accessible now. So while no one can verify in any way a 'next life', the Absolute can indeed be verified by going to see for yourself.

There is no difference whatsoever. The point I’m getting across here is that you are continually making unfounded claims and assertions that you never support, and which have a preachy air about them. So it is no different to God-belief. And it has been noticed throughout this debate that you only resort to “go see for yourself” when your arguments comes to a cul-de-sac. And that is another similarity where theists say things such as ‘You must open your heart to God’ or ‘Believe in order to understand.’ The actual words used may be entirely different but the exhortation is a common ploy by which the advocate hopes to detach himself from the claim once his argument is exhausted. But all credibility just drains away after that.

So if you are inviting folk to ‘verify’ it for themselves then it is high time you explained exactly how this verification is to be carried out?

In addition, your other analogy of the 'self' to the 'Self' is also illogical, since the former is merely a concept that is seen as an encapsulated entity, while the latter is non-local and limitless, and so cannot be so encapsulated by the conceptual mind as you would like it to fit your nice, neat little formula of Logic and Reason.

Despite the special plea, and no matter how one tries to insulate the term from its actual meaning it still refers to an assumed importance or priority belonging to the thing - to be experienced vicariously in this case by association. Or in plain terms selfishly, and as you said in 1459: “…progress toward a more enlightened and therefore happier state of being.”

I will need for you to first tell me what death is.

(!) I think you know as well as I what is meant by “death”, it is the destruction of organisms, ie living cells, plant, animal, or human.

 

[cottage]

In effect, we are dreaming we're awake, but there is still a difference in the nature of the dream when asleep compared to the nature of the dream when awake. What is the nature of that difference?

Ah…and what difference would that be?

 

[godnotgod]

Belief is the issue! The reason the controversy exists is because we believe there are two conditions: wakefulness and sleep. I’m saying there is no way to conclusively establish that there is such a distinction. And I’m sure you don’t need me to inform you that the given instance of two opposites does not imply their existence. The very idea of the five levels of sleep can be dreamt, as can any other psychological theory together with every conceivable experience. And anyway, according to your argument, the levels of sleep are mere phenomena. So once again you’ve fallen into self-contradiction by calling upon the illusory experiential world in order to argue for features in the experiential world!

No, the issue is not belief. The issue is that the majority of mankind detects a difference between physical dream-sleep and waking sleep. Whether it is a dream or a belief is not my question. My question has to do with why almost everyone detects this difference. That is all I am trying to get at here. You keep denying there is a difference, but you experience the same thing as billions of others. Whether the difference is a dream itself is not the issue; I simply want to know what that difference, real or imagined, is.

While it is true that the given instance of two opposites does not imply their existence, the moment you employ the use of one, illusory or not, you have automatically called into play its opposite. The moment you say 'dream' you imply an awakening from the dream. And if what you imply, that the entire scenario is but a dream, then you are implying the waking up from that dream. Now stop denying the truth! You're just being silly!

 

[godnotgod]

There is no difference whatsoever.

There is a huge difference! The belief of a 'next life' is totally unverifiable as it is in the after-death state, while the Absolute is not a belief, and is immediately present. In fact, YOU are it, hiding from yourself, pretending to be a sceptic, and acting coy about it.

Despite the special plea, and no matter how one tries to insulate the term from its actual meaning it still refers to an assumed importance or priority belonging to the thing - to be experienced vicariously in this case by association. Or in plain terms selfishly, and as you said in 1459: “…progress toward a more enlightened and therefore happier state of being.”

I'll state it once again:

"...your...analogy of the 'self' to the 'Self' is...illogical, since the former is merely a concept that is seen as an encapsulated entity, while the latter is non-local and limitless, and so cannot be so encapsulated by the conceptual mind..."


That's my explanation and I'm sticking to it! Your Logic and Reason are so convoluted and tortuous, you become lost yourself in your own maze, whereupon you end up believing in their fallacious conclusions!

(!) I think you know as well as I what is meant by “death”, it is the destruction of organisms, ie living cells, plant, animal, or human.

Well then, you're wrong, because that is NOT what I think, and if that is your definition, then there is no such thing as 'death' because there is no such destruction. You are being fooled!

 

[godnotgod]

Ah…and what difference would that be?

While asleep and dreaming, the dream is real. Once we awaken, we see that the dream is not real.

 

[Thief]

While asleep and dreaming, the dream is real. Once we awaken, we see that the dream is not real.

Humans don't have the power of creation.

You can think and dream all you care to.

Reality is separate.

 

[Marcion]

Humans don't have the power of creation.

You can think and dream all you care to.

Reality is separate.

Strictly speaking that is not true.
Human beings can use their imagination to manipulate their world in a creative way.
Also, certain tantra practitioners have developed occult powers to create things out of mind stuff [pure consciousness].

This is possible because the human consciousness or individual subject is directly connected to the Cosmic Consciousness or Universal Subject, that holds the whole of the created universe inside Its imagination.

The difference between our dreams and those of the Cosmic Consciousness is that ours usually don't directly affect creation, but the dream of the Cosmic Consciousness does. Whatever the Cosmic Consciousness thinks immediately becomes a reality as seen from out limited [restricted] view point.
But when we master the way to transcend our limitations, then we realise that Its dream is not the ultimate reality, but merely a projection.

 

[Thief]

Strictly speaking that is not true.
Human beings can use their imagination to manipulate their world in a creative way.
Also, certain tantra practitioners have developed occult powers to create things out of mind stuff [pure consciousness].

This is possible because the human consciousness or individual subject is directly connected to the Cosmic Consciousness that holds the whole of the created universe inside Its imagination.

The difference between our dreams and those of the Cosmic Consciousness is that ours usually don't directly affect creation, but the dream of the Cosmic Consciousness does.

You said it.
There is a distinct difference between manipulation as compared to creation.

You've heard the old philosophical ploy...
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one to hear it....does it make a sound?

Now you might ask....
If you think about a tree in the forest...can the squirrel crack the nut?
Real because you can dream of it?

The Greater Awareness is pending....in the hour that you die.
But what if you don't think like they do?
What if they don't like the way you dream?

 

[godnotgod]

Humans don't have the power of creation.

You can think and dream all you care to.

Reality is separate.

The idea of a 'next life' is thinking and dreaming about something that might be, created by your mind to fit your fantasies. That imagery does not actually exist as reality, as far as we know. So you can think and dream all you care to. Reality is separate.

 

[godnotgod]

There is a distinct difference between manipulation as compared to creation.

No one to date has been able to adequately describe what 'creation' is, as the problem has always been where the original material came from to initiate any such 'creation'. Actually, manipulation is a more apt term, or better, 'manifestation', which solves the problem of the origin of the original 'material' of the universe. In other words, since in manifestation the universe is an illusion, there is no problem about the origin of material since nothing is real. In this view, 'everything comes out of nothing', but there is no 'creation' as such; merely the projection of illusion, or, as the Hindus say, maya.

In short, the play of the universe is just a Big Act.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Strictly speaking that is not true.
Human beings can use their imagination to manipulate their world in a creative way.
Also, certain tantra practitioners have developed occult powers to create things out of mind stuff [pure consciousness].

Whoa whoa, can we hear a bit more specifics about this?