Reality, Theory, God

[PeterJ]

I have to away for a few days, so apologies for dropping out.

 

 

 

 

[immortal]

I seem to have forgotten this discussion.

 

I feel it is necessary to be absolutist when it seems rational to suppose that only one 'explanation of everything' can be correct. Postmodernism in science and philosophy is the death of both. Of course, absolutism should not mean dogmatism or simply shouting ones views at people.

 

Mystical experiences are irrational, yes it solves metaphysical problems but it also simultaneously creates a lot of problems in the metaphysical realm and hence only one explanation of everything cannot be correct. Reality is not something how you want it to be, reality is what it is.

 

If you have an objection to my posts please make it and I will try to meet it. Accusing me of absolutism is no use to anybody. Yes, I am an absolutist. What's wrong with that?

 

If you're not going to change your views in anyway even after showing why you were wrong then why do you want to discuss these things in the first place. I have made an objection to your posts why don't you address them rather than taking it personal.

 

If I have been condescending it will have been a retaliation, and I apologise for it.

 

If I have spoken any mumbo-jumbo please point it out.

 

But my approach has been too irritable, so sorry for that.

 

Your mind-reading approach is too annoying even for members who are tolerant enough to listen to other person's views and opinions, who display patience and civility in discussions.

 

I shouldn't react in kind. When some crackoot comes along and say all religion is rubbish, or mysticism is the same as monotheism, then I should ask for the discussion to be moved to speculations or crackpottery.

 

Do you really think that there were no monotheistic mystics in monotheistic religion? Do you think that the Appolo priests of the Greeks didn't have knowledge about Appolo? Do you think mayans and native americans didn't have knowledge about their gods? Do you think few Buddhists won't communicate with Buddha in personal form?

 

Mysticism doesn't mean the death of Gods, mysticism means the return of Gods. Your view that experiences of personal God(s) by mystics as just misinterpretations is completely wrong.

 

Mayans, their rituals and their precession calendar.

 

Spiritualism of Native Indians

 

St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) was a christian mystic, in her autobiography she has documented her experience of a trip to hell and other profound mystical experiences. The link provides similar experiences by other christian mystics.

 

As she had her famous "hell" experience after all of these, to be followed by even further trials, and finally an unshakable peace, it is worth quoting some of her writings on these levels of prayer. On the fourth degree of prayer, that of union, she says:

 

"The way in which this that we call union comes, and the nature of it, I do not know how to explain....the soul becomes conscious that it is fainting almost completely away, in a kind of swoon, with an exceedingly great and sweet delight. It gradually ceases to breathe and all its bodily strength begins to fail it; it cannot even move its hands without great pains; its eyes involuntarily close, or they remain open, they can hardly see....It is futile for him to attempt to speak: his mind cannot manage to form a single word..for in this condition all outward strength vanishes, while the strength of the soul increases so that it may have fruition of its bliss...But this state in which they [ones faculties] are completely lost, and have no power of imagining anything - for the imagination, I believe, is also completely lost - is, as I say, of brief duration although the faulties do not recover to such an extent as not to be for some hours, as it were, in disorder, God, from time to time, gathering them once more to Himself...I was wondering what it is the soul does during that time, when the Lord said these words to me: "It dies to itself wholly, daughter, in order that it may fix itself more and more upon me; it is no longer itself that lives, but I. As it cannot comprehend what it understands, it is an understanding which understands not."

 

 

[she wrote in Chapter XXXII about her transport to hell, which occurred after all of the previous favors had been granted her. Indeed, she commented that such experiences purified her more, and were more important to her spiritual life, than all of the previous ones. It is worth noting that these experiences occurred when she was well advanced along the spiritual road. For those making psychological parallels, it is true that in that discipline as well, especially in the deep feeling therapies, that the deepest, darkest secrets lying buried in the psyche usually remain inaccessible until well into the therapeutic process:

 

 

"The entrance, I thought, resembled a very long, narrow passage, like a furnace, very low, dark and closely confined; the ground seemed to be full of water which looked like filthy, evil-smelling mud, and in it were many wicked-looking reptiles. At the end there was a hollow place scooped out of a wall, like a cupboard, and it was here that I found myself in close confinement. But the sight of all this was pleasant by comparison with what I felt there....My feelings, I think, could not possibly be exaggerated, nor can anyone understand them. I felt a fire within my soul the nature of which I am utterly incapable of describing. My bodily sufferings were so intolerable that, though in my life I have endured the severest sufferings of this kind....none of them is of the smallest account by comparison with what I felt then, to say nothing of the knowledge that they would be endless and never ceasing. And even these are nothing by comparison with the agony of my soul, an oppression, a suffocation and an affliction so deeply felt, and accompanied by such hopeless and distressing misery, that I cannot too forcibly describe it. To say that it is as if the soul were continually being torn from the body is very little, for that would mean that one's life was being taken by another; whereas in this case it is the soul itself that is tearing itself to pieces. The fact is that I cannot find words to describe that interior fire and that despair which is greater than the most grievous tortures and pains. I could not see who was the cause of them, but I felt, I think, as if I were being both burned and dismembered; and I repeat that the interior fire and despair are the worst things of all. In that pestilential spot, where I was quite powerless to hope for comfort, it was impossible to sit or lie, for there was no room to do so. I had been put in this place which looked like a hole in the wall, and those very walls so terrible to the sight, bore down upon me and completely stifled me. There was no light and everything was in the blackest darkness." (12)

 

So how can you conclude that the father of Jesus do not exist? Do you really think that you can understand the mystical experience of a trip to hell through logic? This is the reason why I advice you to abandon all rational thinking when it comes to mysticism. Its a waste of time for metaphysicians to understand mysticism through logic.

 

 

When St. Teresa died her body was reported to emit an undeniable fragrance like fresh flowers, and on one occasion some priests dug up her body to steal relics, and the fragrance permeated the convent floors alerting the nuns that her grave had been opened! (This phenomenon of the subtle magnification of the aura of a saint has parallels in many traditions. When Kirpal Singh was alive, whether I was meditating some distance away or sitting in his presence, I would catch the sweet scent of roses; after his death I no longer found this to be the case. Perhaps this was because his body had been cremated).The body of St. Teresa, according to hagiographers, did not decompose for many years after her death. (22)

 

It is these kind of experiences like the trip to hell experienced by mystics in parallel traditions and the fresh fragrance which comes out of the bodies of mystics across many traditions brings me closer to mysticism, not the logical explanations given by metaphysicians, blind scholars and blind philosophers.

 

(Immortal) If qualia can exist independently outside of mind then they are fundamental, real and exist as they are. If you have knowledge of the quale of mind itself and if you can percieve mind through Jiva then it shows that mind itself is a quale and not something which is confined within one's mind.

 

But does not the definition of 'quale' means that it requires a mind to exist? The word was invented to describe a mental phenomenon. How can a mental phenomenon be fundamental?

 

No, the definition of quale can be extended to phenomenon happening outside of one's mind. If you have a phenomena in which you can see your own mind then it means mind itself is a quale. Qualia can be extended to describe non-mental phenomena too and its not something confined only to the mind.

 

Anonymous

@ Arindam is

The Atman is beyond Body, Mind, Intellect complex. It is Dhruk and not Dhrushya, it is the seer and not seen. The Body, Mind and Intellect are coming under 'seen' and realsing that I am the Seer is the knowledge.

 

It is taught in three different ways. It is beyond Pancha kosa , Avastatreya, and Sarirathreya.

Atman is different from Pancha Kosas- Body, Prana,Manas,Buddhi and beyond Ananda as a kosa.

And different from Wakeful,dream, Deep sleep state.

And different from Gross, subtle and Causal bodies.

 

The idea is Mind and Intellects are also different from Atma.

 

I think it cannot be put more simple than this, Jiva is the seer and by adopting the methodology of avastatreya you can see your own mind, only then you're called as a true philosopher and you'll recieve the priveledge to study the different schools of philosophical thought.

 

Me: What you're talking about is just transcending outside of mind and knowing the absolute and I don't stop at God, I know there is an another step. Its like you want to directly fly from above and see the land where as I want to take the sea route and arrive at the sea shore. To me the knowledge of a personal God as well as the knowledge of absolute is important. I choose this path.

 

Oh. Okay. Maybe we don't disagree so much after all.

 

You're the one who is not agreeing by saying that mystics who choose the path of personal God only experience misinterpretations of a personal God, their interpretations of a personal God are so perfect that they even tell what ornaments the God(s) is/are wearing. You're view towards theistic mysticism is wrong or you were misinformed.

.

 

Me: Mysticism is not metaphysics. Mysticism provides a method to experience the claims that it asserts and hence it neither falls to the boundary of science nor to the umbrella of metaphysics.

 

Yes. But it is consistent with metaphysics and solves metaphysical problems. The Dalai Lama advises 'Anything that contradicts logic or experience should be abandoned'. and metaphysics is the best place to see what would and would not contradict logic. Of course, in the end metaphysics is a waste of time, but it is a useful ladder, and indespensible for someone wanting to test the doctrine against the facts, maybe before they dive into the practice. This is presumably why Nagarjuna took the trouble to lay out the metaphysical basis of Buddhist cosmology. People often point to Zen practice as an argument against the need for metaphysics, but at least one patriarch of Zen was a good metaphysician and gives the logical basis for the practice. Not necessary, no, but extremely useful. In metaphysics one can prove that the doctrine of mysticism is the only one that leads to no contradictions.

 

There are so many schools of philosophical thought in Buddhism as well as in The Uttara Mimamsa of Upanishads such that each of their philosophy sounds great or seems to be right and in order to know which view is the right one, we need to experience the nature of things ourselves, metaphysics will not solve the problem or gives you the answer.

 

Our disagreements are understandable because you're arguing from metaphysics but I am arguing from mystical experiences or mystics who have had direct experiences of the nature of things, that's the main difference.

I'm arguing for the veracity of these experiences. It's just that I wouldn't expect appeals to first-person experience to be taken seriously here. If you ask me what I gain from my experience, it would be, among other things, the veracity of my views about metaphysics.

 

I don't know what your metaphysical views are but you seem to have a bias towards non-theistic mystical experiences and against theistic mystical experiences. That's double standards, mysticism is not something spoken only by intelligent people, it is spoken by men of God.

 

Me: Metaphysics will take you nowhere.

 

This is wrong. Metaphysics led me like an arrow to Buddhism.

 

Again there are so many views in Buddhism itself which contradicts each others views, so you have to get into the field to know which view is right without doing that it will take you nowhere.

 

Me: Kant has really shown that we need rationalism as well as empiricism if it has to be accountable as real knowledge.

 

Not sure what this means. I'm a fan of Kant. He used metaphysics to show that world is as Lao Tsu says it is. In his view both the basis of the intellect and of the world itself is a phenomenon that is not an instance fo a category. He left it to Hegel to name this a 'spritual unity'. From this comes Bradley's 'Absolute Idealism', which is an endorsement of Nagarjuna's Middle Way doctrine and the 'advaita' doctrine of the late Upanishads etc.

 

Hegel's famous dictum that "the real is rational and the rational real" can thus be understood as an expression of the identity of reality and the rational process.

 

If you have any thoughts in your mind that the mysticism or even the spiritual unity spoken by Advaita and by other mystics works on this above dictum then my humble opinion to you is that you better abandon all your rational thinking when analysing unity spoken in Upanishads because one cannot understand it through reason, its beyond reason and it doesn't work in a rational way, this is the advice given in scriptures.

 

For your curiosity Hegel's dictum can partially work up to the creative ego as postulated by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in Upanishads this creative ego is none other than the personal God itself and this creative ego(or personal God or personal ego) exists in every living thing and he is the same creative ego which is also the universal or absolute ego from which all objective reality is derived.

 

One can think rationally upto here but you cannot go beyond that, one has to take the Absolute idealism of Bradley to know the absolute through mystical experience. So I think the work of Johann Gottlieb Fichte should recieve a reconsideration. To me the absolute of Bradley and the creative ego of Fichte both are important in creating the aspects of reality that we see. That's what I am saying in your own metaphysician's terms.

 

 

Me: You're reading literature from blind philosphers who haven't seen the light, they will just argue it will be like this or it will be like that but it is the literature of mystics which will help us to have great insights into the knowledge of God and the absolute, the exact nature of things and how to achieve that knowledge by ourselves and hence such a knowledge is real because it can be passed on to others.

 

We cannot borrow knoweldge, as they say in Zen. What we read in books is relative knowledge. It might be utter nonsense. True knowledge is identical with its object, and this is an axiom for mysticism. It does not come from books or from other people. Do we not agree even about this?

 

Yes I do agree with this one.

 

It is rather an astonishing insult to say that I am reading books by blind philosophers. It suggest that I am so blind I cannot even see that these authors are blind. My dissertation was on the relationship between metaphysics and mysticism, and while I might be wrong nobody has shown me where yet.

 

I do realize that mysticism plays an important part in metaphysics and solves most of the problems but I have serious doubts of whether there is an one-to-one correspondance between the rationality of metaphysicians and experiential knowledge of mystics, that is what my concern is.

 

Perhaps it is better to resort to transcendental Idealism of Kant which will be the final ultimate universal knowledge of the objective as well as the subjective world. If you have reached the point of knowledge of the creative ego of Fichte the next step would be to have the knowledge of the Transcendental self, the true precondition eternal knowledge of the nature of things.

 

Me: I am not endorsing the Middle way view of Nagarjuna at all.

 

Yes. That's my problem. You are claiming that Buddhist doctrine is false.

 

I never claimed that, I just said that the non-dual of Advaita by Sankara contradict some of the Buddhist views about reality, for him the objective world has relative and empirical existence where as for buddhists the world doesn't exist, its illusory. Buddhists neither claim that unity exists nor they say that it doesn't exist where as for Sankara he is certain that unity exists and also he approves the existence of personal God(s). I don't know what is your view on this, you seem to often quote from buddhism as well as from advaita, I just said that they don't hold similar views.

 

Me: Infact I am arguing that personal God and the absolute both exist and they both are as fundamental as they are real.

 

To claim that there are two real phenomenon is dualism, not mysticism. I suppose you would say otherwise, and may believe that 'The Philosophy of the Upanishads' by Professor Radhkrishnan is by a blind author. But I think he's got it right. Dualism is false or mysticism is nonsense.

 

First of all your defintion of mysticism is so improper such that I don't know what you mean by mysticism then.

 

The Upanishads itself have so many schools of phylosophical thought or interpretations such as Dvaita(dualism) by Madhavacharya, Advaita(non-dualism) by Sankara, Vishishtadvaita(qualified monism) by Ramanujarcharya, Shuddhadvaita(pure monism) by Vallabhacharya, they all interpret the relationship between Jiva (the individual self), Ishvara(the personal God or creative ego) and Absolute self(Brahman). All these schools of philosphical thought comes under the one roof of mysticism. You've misunderstood so many things that I can't really interpret what you're saying when you say "Dualism is false or mysticism is nonsense". Even Dualists are mystics, what's wrong with you.

 

Some say that Brahman and Isvara are one and the same and are like the two sides of a coin. They are two aspects- without attribute (nirguna) and with attributes (saguna) -- of the same Reality. This concept does not convince logically. One single non-dualistic Reality cannot be both with and without attributes. It is better to accept dualism instead of two aspects of a non-dualistic Reality that is homogenous, undifferentiated and partless. Some others say that nirguna Brahman is higher and that saguna Brahman is lower. This also does not satisfy the conditions of non-dualistic philosophy without positive involvement of dualism. The concept of Isvara (edit:Isvara -- personal god or creative ego) in Advaita Vedanta is very much technical and needs comprehension for a thorough understanding of the philosophy

 

Your argument against my view can be put into the tone of this author, isn't it?

 

Now do you realize why the knowledge of a personal God or Isvara or creative ego is so much important in the non-dual of Advaita Vedanta.?

 

Sankara accepted that Saguna Brahman (i.e the absolute with attributes) exist and therefore he accepted that personal God too was eternal, undecaying and real and this is the view which I hold on to. If it doesn't convince you logically then no problem it doesn't convince me logically either but I go by experience and not logic.

 

Edited February 2, 2012 by immortal

[PeterJ]

Well, sorry Immortal but I disagree with you about most of this. Trouble is it's too long a post to answer. I would note that many of your objections miss the mark. Perhaps I'm not suggesting quite what you think I am.

 

The idea that nondualism entails contradictions is not correct. For a contradiction two categories are required. Nondualism states that all categories are false so it cannot lead to contradictions. If the universe is a unity there can be no true contradictions.

[immortal]

I would note that many of your objections miss the mark.

 

Show where I have miss the mark.

 

The idea that nondualism entails contradictions is not correct. For a contradiction two categories are required. Nondualism states that all categories are false so it cannot lead to contradictions. If the universe is a unity there can be no true contradictions.

 

Neither you nor me know what unity is hence we cannot argue from that basis.

 

However assuming that the universe is a unity to say that from this assumption there can be no true contradictions you need to first explain to me from where the plurality of this world comes from, even if we assume it is all produced only in our minds then you need to explain to me from where did the mind came from? If mind was not real then why am I not union with the unity, why am I unaware that I am "One". Therefore at some point there had to be a second to account for the origin of mind which makes us unware of the fact that we are "One". There lies the contradiction. Counter my argument.

 

 

[PeterJ]

A proper answer would have to be too long for here.

 

But briefly, if the world is a unity then all positive metaphysical positions are false. In no case could the universe as a whole be characterised as this or that, just as Lao Tsu tells us. If all such positions are false, then all metaphysical dilemmas, (where inevitably one positive position is positioned in a contradictory and complementary relationship to its counterpart), are undecidable, just as Kant and Hegel proposed.

 

That all such positions can be logically refuted is shown formally by Nagarjuna and informally by Francis Bradley. It is also consistent with the conclusions of almost all philosophers, not one of whom has ever proved otherwise, and would explain why metaphysics appears to many people to be virtually pointless.

 

Only if the universe is a unity, such that all phenomenon share a common identity, would the knowledge claimed by mysticism be possible. This is true regardless of whether we have a clue as to what we really mean by 'unity'. This is not something that can be conceived, and in thought we can only investigate its logical ramifications. These ramifications are often very clear.

 

I would not want to argue that God does not exist since this is much too simple an idea to capture what I believe to be true. After all, never mind 'God', it is even difficult to known what we mean by 'exist'.

 

But in logic it can be demonstrated that if there is a God then He cannot be wholly distinct from ourselves, any more then we can be wholly distinct from each other. According to logic the universe as a whole is a unity, or, to put it differently, reduces to a unity. Whether it actually is a unity cannot be established in logic, which does not produce true knowledge. It can only be established empirically. Yet it is suggestive that logic and three thousand years of reported experience coincide so exactly.

 

So please don't dismiss logic as useless. Although it cannot make us drink it can at least drive us to water.

Edited February 5, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

According to logic the universe as a whole is a unity, or, to put it differently, reduces to a unity. Whether it actually is a unity cannot be established in logic, which does not produce true knowledge. It can only be established empirically. Yet it is suggestive that logic and three thousand years of reported experience coincide so exactly.

 

So please don't dismiss logic as useless. Although it cannot make us drink it can at least drive us to water.

 

 

So Metaphysics can't even prove that the universe is a unity because even such a logic can be refuted and has inconsistencies or contradictions with in itself as shown in my post #154. So where does it take me.

[PeterJ]

No. that's not it at all.

 

Logic shows that all partial or positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible.

 

This is demonstrable. It is the most famous result that metaphysics produces.

 

The only remaining theory would state that the universe is a unity.

 

All this can be logically proved.

 

Whether the universe is a unity cannot be established in metaphysics but would be an empirical matter.

 

I wonder why you are so anti-logic.

[immortal]

No. that's not it at all.

 

Logic shows that all partial or positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible.

 

This is demonstrable. It is the most famous result that metaphysics produces.

 

The only remaining theory would state that the universe is a unity.

 

All this can be logically proved.

 

Whether the universe is a unity cannot be established in metaphysics but would be an empirical matter.

 

What makes you think that the only remaining theory which states that the universe is a unity is logically defensible, you didn't addressed my contradictions to it which shows that even such a theory is logically inconsistent.

 

I wonder why you are so anti-logic.

 

It is because mysticism is irrational, it doesn't go by logic.

[PeterJ]

Oh. I didn't realise you have such a low opinion of mysticism. I suppose it wouldn't matter to you that all Buddhists would disagree with you. Have you not even read Nagarjuna? He logically proves that you are wrong. But enough is enough.

[doG]

Oh. I didn't realise you have such a low opinion of mysticism. I suppose it wouldn't matter to you that all Buddhists would disagree with you. Have you not even read Nagarjuna? He logically proves that you are wrong. But enough is enough.

If all the Buddhists of the world believed there is a Lazyboy recliner orbiting Neptune would that make it true just because they believe it? Logic alone will not prove mysticism.

[PeterJ]

If all the Buddhists of the world believed there is a Lazyboy recliner orbiting Neptune would that make it true just because they believe it? Logic alone will not prove mysticism.

Oh dear. Please read the discussion before posting silly objections. My point was that Buddhism is mysticism, ergo the view being expressed by immortal would not represent mysticism.

 

Logic alone can prove that the the doctrine of mystcism is the only metaphysical view that is not logically absurd. But you're right, it cannot do any more than this. Not can it prove that all apples fall own, or that the world outside your mind actually exists, or that there is not a Lazyboy recliner orbiting Neptune.

 

My last post on this thread.

[immortal]

Oh. I didn't realise you have such a low opinion of mysticism. I suppose it wouldn't matter to you that all Buddhists would disagree with you. Have you not even read Nagarjuna? He logically proves that you are wrong. But enough is enough.

 

 

I am not saying Buddhism is false, the nondual advaita by Sankara says Buddhism is false, I just have to speak the truth, if it sounds bitter to you what can I do. I am not in favour of any mystical views nor do I adhere to them, logic is not the way to know which school of philosophical thought is correct or incorrect, it is known through experiential knowledge by sitting in a cave or under a tree and bringing some real testable knowledge. I can't let wrong information to be spread over here, I can't say anything just to please someone.

 

Oh dear. Please read the discussion before posting silly objections. My point was that Buddhism is mysticism, ergo the view being expressed by immortal would not represent mysticism.

 

Then according to your biased defintion of mysticism, nondual advaita by Sankara doesn't support your metaphysical theory which you have used as a support for your metaphysical theory in "From Metaphysics to Mysticism" article, you haven't surveyed all the literature sources properly.

 

However assuming that the universe is a unity to say that from this assumption there can be no true contradictions you need to first explain to me from where the plurality of this world comes from, even if we assume it is all produced only in our minds then you need to explain to me from where did the mind came from? If mind was not real then why am I not union with the unity, why am I unaware that I am "One". Therefore at some point there had to be a second to account for the origin of mind which makes us unware of the fact that we are "One". There lies the contradiction. Counter my argument.

 

Now as I have said in the other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57295-metaphysics-and-science/page__pid__656616#entry656616 theistic mysticism do not hold a neutral metaphysical position, they hold a positive metaphysical position, according to Advaita Mind, the objective world and personal God exists and personal god is the basis for mind as well as matter, finally personal God himself dissolves in you, You're Unity, you're the ultimate truth, you're God. This is the advaita school of philosophical thought. Therefore it holds a positive metaphysical position which is defensible by experiential knowledge and it doesn't go by logic, this is the opinion of theistic mysticism or Advaita. I don't hold any low or high opinion towards any mystical school of thought as concluded by PeterJ

[mooeypoo]

This seems to be on point here.

 

 

Change "God" to "mysticism" in that video, and it's pretty much the same.

[questionposter]

I have noticed in discussions of theories and God, that there is a reluctance to give the holder of the theory, if it is not "us" holding the theory, the benefit of the doubt.

 

The tendency to put the same idea in a good light when described concerning the first person, a neutral light concerning the second person, and a negative light with the third person, seems evident, and probably has some basis, in terms of how we are "set up" as humans.

 

I am thinking it may have to do with what rules "we" go by.

 

The topic title was written by TAR2 (me), who is an Atheist.

 

The order of Reality,Theory,God might be God, Reality, Theory to a Theist, or Theory, Reality, God to a scientist.

 

The people "we" identify with, are the people whose mind we already know, who go by "our" rules.

 

On the other hand "you" don't know what you are talking about.

 

And "they" are obviously in error.

 

What is interesting to me is that everybody exists in, and has the same access to, the same world.

But each individual goes by their "own" rules, consistent with the combination of "we" camps, that they belong to.

 

So, the question is, in your own first person, what is it that you understand, that I don't see, that they are getting wrong?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Everything that you can possibly know is based off your of own possible perception, and that same pattern holds true for others as well. People we "identify" with are not necessarily similar minded, but may have had similar experiences to shape them and what they also know. There's probably a few group mechanisms involved with it as well.

 

This seems to be on point here.

 

 

Change "God" to "mysticism" in that video, and it's pretty much the same.

 

 

God does seem pretty unlike to me too, based on my current understanding of the universe, but reality is kind of lame without religion, and there wouldn't really be much of a problem with it if people didn't mix up archaic feelings with religious ideals as to become violent or arrogant.

Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter

[immortal]

That's the point the same arguments which applies to God also applies to the mysticism of PeterJ.

 

PeterJ is arguing only for the subjective aspect of God and this is the reason the Buddhists believe in sunyata or nihilism because either both the subjective as well as the objective exists or both do not exist since Buddhists are only concerned with the subjective aspect of God they cannot make any positive claims about the world since they cannot speak with certainty that the subjective itself exists either and hence they believe in nihilism. There is a distinction between the Non-dual of Shankara and Buddhism where as Buddhists stop only at the subjective and assert that nothing exists, Shankara transcends the subjective and positively asserts that a unity exists which is beyond the subjective and the objective and there is no specific means to know that unity, it is unknowable, that knowledge has to come all by itself on its own.

 

There are other schools of thought who argue that both the subjective aspect of God which is the Self or Atman and the objective aspect of God with his form or name should be understood in order to have a complete knowledge about the world and to know the two aspects of the same reality. The reason why we are not seeing any evidence for God while we are objective observers is because there is a great urge in people to only have knowledge about the subjective aspect of God but no one seem to be interested in knowing the objective aspect of God which helps us to become the masters of our world and to demonstrate unusual phenomena so that even scientists can test those predictions and falsify the existence of God, the reason we are not seeing any miracles being performed by theists is because majority of the theists are interested only in the subjective aspect of God which only gives them to escape the suffering from this world and act as mere spectators of the world rather than being masters of their world demonstrating some very unlikely and unusual phenomena. This is the kind of mysticism I have tried to argue in this thread and the mysticism of PeterJ is incomplete knowledge and thinks that if we somehow eliminate God from the picture it solves our problems which in my opinion it doesn't and actually creates more problems than it solves.

[tar]

Mooey,

 

I think the video is a strawman argument.

 

Not likely the thinking of a theist. Instead the thinking of an Atheist trying to put himself in the shoes of a Theist. (and build a silly argument)

 

Fact is, when somebody talks of God, they are not thinking about a God you know does not exist. They are thinking about objective reality. Objective reality that trumps everything you know.

 

You, as a scientist may be convinced that the universe is explainable by a handful of laws that matter and energy abide by...and that all that there is is random combinations of these laws...that in these laws there is no hint of consciousness and intent.

 

Yet here you sit. A willfull, conscious collection of accidental chemicals.

 

And if you are part of the universe, part of objective reality, part of an unthinking universe...where did the "thinking" come into the picture?

 

Not unlikely in my way of thinking, that I am just as smart and just as dumb as the rest of the universe.

 

Any attributes I may have, came in some way, from objective reality. That means objective reality CAN and DID create me. On its own, without any outside help.

 

And an acorn lies on the floor of a virgin forest somewhere, in all its intricate beauty and promise of treeness, without any human's equation, prediction, or assistance.

 

The universe, objective reality, did that, all on it's own.

 

The doer of the Oak tree is the God theists know.

 

It need not be the grey bearded gentleman you know does not live in the clouds.

 

It is objective reality itself, that we are part of, that we know intimately.

 

Regards, TAR2

[mooeypoo]

The video is a mocking vid, so yes, it's extreme and it doesn't represent theists, it represnts the 'extreme' theists -- the evangelical in-your-face preachers.

 

Overall, it has good points despite the fact it's a mocking video that goes to the extreme, which is why I put it in.

 

It's not a replacement of actual claims, but I thought it had interesting points.

[tar]

Mooey,

 

I think when you take anything to the extreme it becomes absurd.

 

Laughable when done in ernest.

 

Hurtful when done mockingly.

 

Let the evangelical preachers make their own silly statements.

 

But don't put words in their mouth. Make your points with counter examples.

 

There are many believers in God that are not evangelical preachers. And the God they believe in may have more similarities to the objective reality you believe in than you think. Where the differences are, are the areas up for discussion, but that leaves a lot of meat on both plates.

 

And it comes back to the title of this thread. The same idea, when you hold it, is put in a good light. When somebody else holds it, it is put in a questionable light. And when a third party holds it, it is downright absurd.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Even cosmologists that predict what the universe will "look like" in 25 billion years, are revealing their belief in a consciousness that is greater and longer lasting than their own. That objective reality IS a being that exists. Whose particular attributes include at least the ability to "look".

Edited March 28, 2012 by tar