I now believe in god, and invite you to prove me wrong… ;)

[_Z_]

I now believe in 'god', and invite you to prove me wrong…

Hi people, I have been rethinking my entire philosophy, and so as to compare, I invite you all, atheists, Buddhists and religionists to challenge or compare my new understanding…

In order to understand ‘the reality map’ completely, the first thing to do is to see reality as a ‘oneness’, if we attempt to define it in any manner of a plurality then that will always be contained within a greater oneness, hence oneness is prime and fundamental. A oneness composes necessarily everything we know to exist but in an undifferentiated form, so everything we are is within it in some manner ~ even infinity.

From the oneness we have to get from there to ‘universe’, as the universe doesn’t expand through infinite time, then it is manifest in some manner, something has to make it and that something ultimately has to be the fundamental nature of reality.

The point most people miss is that the creation has to be reasoned and logical or it would be a nonsense, rule; being infinite {unlimited}, God cannot perform imperfect actions {imperfection denotes a limit}, thus can only create what logically works. The universe is the creation, and we have to live with it, learn it and overcome our obstacles or not ~ as ‘we choose’. if anyone can suggest how to make a universe that doesn’t have all the properties of physics and metaphysics that this universe has, then please emancipate us from our ignorance.

We can blame the creator all we like, but you cant have evolution of life without the fundamentals of physics and biology. You may blame god for cancer, but cancer is resultant of some manner of degradation where cells take on their own life - so to say, just as they do in the origins of biology.
Essentially what I am saying here is that science is the study of gods creation, there is only one way to make this universe and it is pointless to say god doesn’t exist simply because universes have entropy and depredating factors.

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form. where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.

…still not a christian though lols ~ the way I see it, is we are all the children of divinity, and people who profess to speak for god can only be making subjective interpretations of what god means [that doesn’t make them liars]. So philosophy is still my favourite approach to understanding divinity. I do think jesus was a great liberator, but maybe there is an inherent flaw in christian thinking…

Briefly I see Christianity as originally a force for some good, where for example in Greece you had the masses put down as going to Hades when they die [- good way to control them] and only hero’s can pop in out of there and then get to Elysium.

Then in western Europe you had he celts, iberians and germans all whom to some degree followed a roughly similar faith; druidry, now imagine preist + judge, in my mind that can only equal oppression [also consider sex and death rituals and human sacrifice that went on untul the norse finally converted]. Maybe I misinterpret some of that but that’s not the point here…

You can imagine the rest, and sure they all had more salient features, but generally I think we can see Christianity originally as a great liberator, lifting the weight of centuries, millennia even, of oppression of the people. However within Christianity lies the seeds of its own demise Imho e.g. those early Christians tore down the library at Alexandria persecuted and killed a female philosopher as a witch [cant remember her name] and destroyed centuries of great learning.

So on the one hand they gave light and release to the ordinary people, later opposing money lending etc, and giving rise to peoples revolts and liberalism even anarchism. Then with the other hand, they plunged us into a kind of literate darkness as far as they could.

Some Christians even view intelligence as immoral somehow, so in short, what I am asking is, do the scriptures give us any potential for change? Is there any need for oppression and anti universal education & intelligence, or can there be a new Christianity that recognises truth and only seeks to change things by that ~ rather than oppression?

Just a quick introduction to my current thoughts, happy Easter!
　
　

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible."

 

[citizenzen]

I now believe in 'god', and invite you to prove me wrong…

I'm not sure why I'd even try. But I tell you what, let's look at the argument and see what comes up anyway...

The point most people miss is that the creation has to be reasoned and logical or it would be a nonsense...

Disagree. Quantum physics is not logical. Nonsense does preclude something from existing, it just means we are (as yet) incapable of making sense of it.

rule; being infinite {unlimited}, God cannot perform imperfect actions {imperfection denotes a limit}

Disagree. Imperfection denotes a limit? That's a new one to me. You throw that out like it's a truism, but it really just sounds like a rationalization.

In my mind, being infinite wouldn't mean you are incapable of error, it would just mean you're capable of infinite error.

The universe is the creation, and we have to live with it, learn it and overcome our obstacles or not ~ as ‘we choose’.

Have you talked with RodgerTutt lately?

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form.

Mind is both an aggregate of senses and a metaphysical entity.

where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature

Actually, it seems most views I've read try not to describe the space and nature of nirvana.

…still not a christian though lols

Thank God!

[also consider sex and death rituals and human sacrifice that went on untul the norse finally converted]

I sure do miss the good-old days.

Just a quick introduction to my current thoughts, happy Easter!

Right back at'cha dude!

Good luck with the search!

 

[Quahom1]

I now believe in 'god', and invite you to prove me wrong…

Hi people, I have been rethinking my entire philosophy, and so as to compare, I invite you all, atheists, Buddhists and religionists to challenge or compare my new understanding…

In order to understand ‘the reality map’ completely, the first thing to do is to see reality as a ‘oneness’, if we attempt to define it in any manner of a plurality then that will always be contained within a greater oneness, hence oneness is prime and fundamental. A oneness composes necessarily everything we know to exist but in an undifferentiated form, so everything we are is within it in some manner ~ even infinity.

From the oneness we have to get from there to ‘universe’, as the universe doesn’t expand through infinite time, then it is manifest in some manner, something has to make it and that something ultimately has to be the fundamental nature of reality.

The point most people miss is that the creation has to be reasoned and logical or it would be a nonsense, rule; being infinite {unlimited}, God cannot perform imperfect actions {imperfection denotes a limit}, thus can only create what logically works. The universe is the creation, and we have to live with it, learn it and overcome our obstacles or not ~ as ‘we choose’. if anyone can suggest how to make a universe that doesn’t have all the properties of physics and metaphysics that this universe has, then please emancipate us from our ignorance.

We can blame the creator all we like, but you cant have evolution of life without the fundamentals of physics and biology. You may blame god for cancer, but cancer is resultant of some manner of degradation where cells take on their own life - so to say, just as they do in the origins of biology.
Essentially what I am saying here is that science is the study of gods creation, there is only one way to make this universe and it is pointless to say god doesn’t exist simply because universes have entropy and depredating factors.

Now onto the aspect of self; the mind is not an aggregate of the senses, it is a metaphysical entity fed by the instrumentation of the human form. where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.

…still not a christian though lols ~ the way I see it, is we are all the children of divinity, and people who profess to speak for god can only be making subjective interpretations of what god means [that doesn’t make them liars]. So philosophy is still my favourite approach to understanding divinity. I do think jesus was a great liberator, but maybe there is an inherent flaw in christian thinking…

Briefly I see Christianity as originally a force for some good, where for example in Greece you had the masses put down as going to Hades when they die [- good way to control them] and only hero’s can pop in out of there and then get to Elysium.

Then in western Europe you had he celts, iberians and germans all whom to some degree followed a roughly similar faith; druidry, now imagine preist + judge, in my mind that can only equal oppression [also consider sex and death rituals and human sacrifice that went on untul the norse finally converted]. Maybe I misinterpret some of that but that’s not the point here…

You can imagine the rest, and sure they all had more salient features, but generally I think we can see Christianity originally as a great liberator, lifting the weight of centuries, millennia even, of oppression of the people. However within Christianity lies the seeds of its own demise Imho e.g. those early Christians tore down the library at Alexandria persecuted and killed a female philosopher as a witch [cant remember her name] and destroyed centuries of great learning.

So on the one hand they gave light and release to the ordinary people, later opposing money lending etc, and giving rise to peoples revolts and liberalism even anarchism. Then with the other hand, they plunged us into a kind of literate darkness as far as they could.

Some Christians even view intelligence as immoral somehow, so in short, what I am asking is, do the scriptures give us any potential for change? Is there any need for oppression and anti universal education & intelligence, or can there be a new Christianity that recognises truth and only seeks to change things by that ~ rather than oppression?

Just a quick introduction to my current thoughts, happy Easter!
　
　

I would watch out for the "trap" of mixing "Faith" with Religion.
Where as Christianity (for example) is a faith (to believe in Christ), Catholicism, or Baptism, or Mormonism, etc., are religious expressions and rules for that particular faith. Often as not, the religion is practiced, absent of the faith, which leads us to your historical perspective on the not so pretty actions of the Christian past.

I suspect the same could be said for other faiths and their particular religious rituals that are used to express those faiths...

Q

 

[wil]

Namaste Z,

Good luck on your path!

I also believe in G!d, but don't hold many of the conventional beliefs about G!d.

 

[_Z_]

Thanks everyone, I am still searching of course, perhaps I should stop, I don’t know.

Nick the Pilot

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible."

Hence Aztecs performed human sacrifices based on a misunderstanding of the world and divinity. i kninda know what you mean though, its like letting go and accepting 'truth', but surely one has to have a basis. if for example i had never read the bible and just accepted 'truth' as if its a given, then would i belive in all kinds of nonsense like aztecs etc?

citizenzen

Disagree. Quantum physics is not logical. Nonsense does preclude something from existing, it just means we are (as yet) incapable of making sense of it.

…and when we make sense of it, it will then be logical right.

Disagree. Imperfection denotes a limit? That's a new one to me. You throw that out like it's a truism, but it really just sounds like a rationalization.

Well imperfection is in terms of creation is similar to unfinished, and hence a limit has been imposed. Equally imagine you perform infinite yoga of mind and entity, you stretch infinitely in ever manner, and hence there is nothing left. So an infinite act doesn’t leave anything out, hence is perfect/complete.

Have you talked with RodgerTutt lately?

Nope, don’t know who he is.

Mind is both an aggregate of senses and a metaphysical entity.

Cant be both essentially, it is either material or not, in life it is joined with the material like water in a sponge.

Actually, it seems most views I've read try not to describe the space and nature of nirvana.

Herein lies its limits, if you think it is a nature of reality then it has to have dimension etc otherwise it is simply non existent.

I sure do miss the good-old days.

Really? There is plenty of good stuff in paganism, and I am inclined to see the gods as like incarnations of the one ~ like in Hinduism.

 

[Paladin]

Hey Z!!

A little confused here... Always seems I'm the last one to get it

But if there is "oneness" how can there be an "I" who "Believes" in a "God" ?

 

[_Z_]

But if there is "oneness" how can there be an "I" who "Believes" in a "God" ?

hi paladin

thats certainly a tricky one, i would say that ultimately there is a oneness, but that oneness seams to be able to divide itself [although the division is not absolute]. it certainly seams absurd that we are all the same essential thing [esp as concerns sex ], but its equally wrong to say we are completely separate.

what i get stuck with most is diversity, i cant accept that satan exists. i just think we posess the gift of self determinism, hence can do 'evil' things. however that we are so individual and diverse, that suggests something of the same in the expression of g?d or the oneness into the multiplicity.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste _Z_

interesting post.

just curious on your thoughts as to why a Buddhist may be interested in dissuading you from your belief in 'god' or anything else for that matter?

as for proving you wrong... who can do that other than yourself as only you know what you believe in.

regarding the argument, i would disagree with your initial axioms upon which your premises are based as my world view arises from a radically different ontological paradigm thus i come to radically different conclusions regarding such matters.

where we may say that the ultimate nature is nirvana, we then have to describe its space and nature, then whenever we do so we come across the same thing as trying to describe either the inner most self or god.

i'm curious as to how you've come to this conclusion? the Buddha explains the nature of nibbana in both negative fashion i.e. what it is not "not another dimension or realm of existence", and in positive fashion i.e. what it is "blissful, absences of dukkha" etc. if we're taking a Buddhist understanding of the term nirvana (nibbana) seems it would be well advised to take the meaning of the term from the Buddhists as well.

here's a great study from the Pali Tipitaka regarding Nibbana (nirvana) and how it's understood in the orthodox Buddhist context: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html


metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Hi vaj

Lets say that reality is nirvana and for the moment put to one side all other considerations, that there is a universe etc. we may for sure define that space as nirvana which would be blissful, but when you say it is ‘not another dimension or realm of existence’ what is it ~ I mean as an objective space? Its easy to think of it as mind without differentiation, a oneness, but as a reality what is that mind.

From the link [thanks btw]

Nibbaayati</I> also means to extinguish

What is the space of that? If it is purely a mental construct, then when we die it is irrelevant, as it says in the link it is not an afterlife. Yet we also hear of rebirth where the flame is extinguished and relit, surely Buddha is imagining a reality and not just a fabrication of mind ~ or lack of such lols. I always saw nirvana as an ultimate state of reality not just of mind.


　

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste _Z_

my views of this subject are predicated upon my own studies and my own school's understanding of this particular subject.

the most succinct way in which my school expresses Nibbana is as the experience of the mind unfettered by concepts and conceptual thinking. what dies are the flames of conceptions, the subject/object dichotomy by which the mind grasps at sense data ceases to function and, as the Taoists say, the bright, luminous moon rises from behind the mountains.

as the Buddhadharma has four distinct schools of philosophical thought there are varying answers to be found on the subject. indeed, some schools of praxis, whilst paying nominal homage to their philosophical tradition, eschew the study of complete Abidharma, Vinya and Tipitaka. whilst that is not an approach that works for me, it seems to work for them and thus that school has flourished.

it's hard to use concepts to break through concepts;
easier for a sword to cut itself, as the Zen mondo goes, than a human mind use concepts to cut through concepts which is one reason why those schools place such a high value on the meditative side of things.

nevertheless.. that's what it is.. a state of mind without conceptions.. and if you can conceive of that then you'll have discovered why it's so difficult to do!

as for the rest... based upon conceptions which cease to be meaningful.

all of that aside... i'm curious as to your thought process regarding this... is it in your mind that a Buddhist, not me in particular of course, would be interested in dissuading you of a belief in a god?

i'm speaking generally and somewhat for myself, of course, but the Buddhadharma recognizes that other spiritual traditions that have arisen on this world system are valid spiritual refuges. a spiritual refuge is somewhat of a transliteration of a technical Buddhist idea but it essentially means that the religion has a valid moral and ethical code which it encourages its adherents to live by. thus, if your particular god ideology contained a valid moral and ethical code i really couldn't see why a Buddhist would be put off by your belief and practice thereof. not all spiritual traditions have valid moral and ethical codes, however, so if yours didn't then i could see being interested in trying to dissuade of you such ideations


metta,

~v

 

[Paladin]

Vaj:

I am so grateful we have guys like you around. I so enjoy reading your posts, like having Mark Epstein, Robert Thurman, et al. to hang out with
Of all the religions Buddhism and Advaita are closest to my heart.


Z

I think everything is going to be just fine, and I am glad you have stumbled across a perspective that gives you peace and refuge!

There is much that still confounds me, like the whole oneness-that-seems-to-be-many thing. Yet, when I am still, simply watching and breathing I notice life happening all around, and there is only awareness of it all, the I who I am seems only another character in what is unfolding.
It is because of this paying attention that I cannot adhere to any religion but at the same time cannot speak ill of them.
Life becomes at once quite ordinary, devoid of sacredness and holiness and at the same time quite wonderful and precious.
There is no idea why this is so, and yet there it is.
Funny, there is no room for an "I" in all this, but no existential anxiety arises, as the recognition of awareness seems to be calming and peaceful.
Again, I haven't a clue, nor do I have an ambition to seek one out.
There is calmness and aliveness and it is enough. Soha

Mark

 

[_Z_]

Vaj

No I am just seeking meaning to it all as ever, the only way I can do this is by contrasting one idea with another. Hence I am looking at the fundamental nature of reality in different lights ~ not meaning to change minds or cause a riot lols.

This is why I look at that fundamental nature of reality in monotheistic, pagan and Buddhist perspectives, it helps me get an idea of what it is.

Paladin

Well I wouldn’t go as far as peace and refuge, its more like in every direction I turn doors close on me, and on many levels.

Perhaps if I accept that I don’t exist then I’ll find peace in oblivion.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I also believe in God. He is absolute. And because He is Absolute in lives in an eternal realm beyond time, [beyond the affects of the modes of "creation, maintanence, & dissolution]; where He has his own pastimes ---far from where we are here on this planet.

BTW, He exists in three aspects [which compose the entire cosmic phenomena]: A) The Void, B) the nucleus of every speck of animate & inanimate matter-energy, and, C) His own (Transcendental) Personage.

This belief of mine expressed above is based on hearing from "Mother-Vedas" (of India) in the same way that we know who our biological father really is when hearing it from ourown biological mother.

}}}}>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[[O]]<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<{{{{{

There is a always a personality behind the scene:

"The God is a Person Principle"
(or "Why Atheistic Philosophers can't deny that there is always a personality behind the scene"):

Q. Who is the personification of the American Dollar Bill?
A. George Washington.

Q. Who is the Living Personification of the American Dollar Bill?
A. Barak Obama.

Q. Who is the personification of the State of New York'?
A. The Governor (Mr. Paterson)

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many regional Counties of New York State?
A. The County Executive.

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Congressional Districts of New York State?
A. The Congressman/State Representative.

Q. Who is the personification of New York City?
A. The Mayor (Mr. Blumberg).

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Districts of New York City?
A. The Councilman/Ombudsman.

Q. Who is the personification of any 'Block and Lot' tax-parcel of land?
A. The title barer (The Land owner).

Q. Who is the personification of the any Apartment building?
A. "The Landlord".

Q. Who is the personification of any apartment?
A. The tenant.

Q. Who is the personification of the room with the football and the many toy Trains?
A. One of the male children.

Q. Who is the personification of nursery room?
A. The Baby.

The point of my illustration is:
"Without the presence of the persona, all paraphernalia is without meaning nor purpose for existing"




Best regards,
Bhaktajan


An ancient maxim:
"Philosophy without religion is Mental Speculation (aka, subjective guesswork);
Religion without Philosophy is sentimentality (aka, fanaticism)."


PS:
Q. Who is the personification of an Atheistic Philosophers?
A. His temporary illusion? A theist (a hindu Vaishnava) to argue with?

 

[_Z_]

I also believe in God. He is absolute. And because He is Absolute in lives in an eternal realm beyond time,

It depends on what you mean by ‘absolute’, I chose the term ‘oneness’ for good reason as it touches everything. Something that is infinite universal and omniscient etc, must touch everything!_? Imagine ‘god’ is a sheet of paper, anything you draw upon it he intimately knows and touches no matter how small, vast or slight [even QM]. At our essense are we and all life not the sheet of paper too? Equally I am absolutely not you nor you me nor any other, the dichotomy then is that we all have the same stuff but the expression is as you say an individual personality.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

It depends on what you mean by ‘absolute’

I have only recently found this quandry to exist amongst philosophical thinkers.

TRANSIENT = Fleeting, passing, brief, temporary, , momentary, transitory, short-lived, ephemeral, fly-by-night, impermanent, provisional, not absolute.

ABSOLUTE = Absolute [not relatively absolute, but, absolutely absolute].

Once upon a time, there existed a common person, that person is dead and gone ... yes, their life absolutely existed as a historical fact, ---but it was NOT "Absolute" in-existance ---this common person's existance [btw, unlike their 'soul'] was transient.

An example of "that which is absolute" is the "void" ---at least intellectually, the 'void' is absolute.

 

[_Z_]

bhaktajan

Ok so what are we describing as absolute? This is why I used the example of the sheet of paper, then the non-absolute and transient are upon the sheet of paper but are not it specifically.

So now we have to define what the sheet of paper is? [not the transient things upon it] If it is distinct and not touching anything ~ as like you envisage god, then it is limited and thence not infinite. This is what I never understand about monotheism, it is impossible to have an infinite deity that is ‘over there somewhere’ I.e. not unlimited.

Ok so define your absolute?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Ok so what are we describing as absolute?

A person. [God is a Person Absolute].

We souls in the material world are asteriks/footnotes in history.

The soul is seeking [birth after birth since time immemorial (the sanskrit term for endless cycle of re-birth is, samsara)] is a person to love [does that sound alien?].

That principle of seeking the beloved is an absolute truth behind the mystery of "Souls in the material world taking birth after birth".

BTW, the vedas of India explain, the souls that animate all the living life forms ---all preform the same 4 catagories of activities: *eat, sleep, mate & defend* ---these 4 goals are behind all the activities of all creatures in the material manifested cosmos, from the First Progenitor Demigods of the celetial Planetary systems far above the north star; to the worker ants at our feet.

==============================
"A Person" ---must seem so elememtary; it is.

Which came first? The Absolute Person or people, places & things?

Can you imagine that the mystery of life was always just a most simplistic 'Thing'? [Or rather, a Supreme Personality which we call Personage of Godhead Himself].

The typical telephone book is filled with all the avenues of activites, all done by persons for persons seeking more persons to do business for ---this is a shadow-clue of the state of existence beyond the temporary material affairs. Heaven by definition is where God is king thus, there is an 'economy' where the 'legal tender' revolves around pleasing God's Person.

That is an absolute proposition.

 

[_Z_]

I don’t understand how that answers any of my points, it is one thing to say god is a person, we define ourselves as such also, but we are human beings too, we have dimension and being all existing in a space.
So what is absolute about god apart from being a person, and is that an infinite person?

 

[immortalitylost]

You've got some nice thoughts. I totally get "the quest for the meaning of it all" lol. I'm on it. And it seems that the more you learn, the more you realize how much there is that you still don't understand.

I believe that only makes it all the more important to keep at it though.

I'm just hoping that sometime, in this life (not likely), in some kind of afterlife or another, or even in a next life (hey, I'm not picky), there will finally be my "Ah ha!" moment. That's something to look forward to.

It's probably hubris (couldn't think of a better word) to even believe myself capable of understanding "it all".

Meh, that's never stopped me before. (^_^)

Good luck, comrade!