im not talking about a therapy god or something that makes you feel good.
-
jrock2310 — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:45 PM)
"Exactly what I've been saying all along. It is not tangible because it is not physical. If you want a physical, demonstrable deity, you're not talking about a deity at all - you're talking about some powerful creature, alien, or Simulator - or possibly an "Engineer" a la Prometheus, but not God."
then how can you spot it? how can you even speak intelligently about something you can't identify w/out merely subjectively inferring whatever you want a god? can I call the warm and fuzzy feelings after I pray god?
see im nit necessarily saying it has to be santa clause in the sky. im saying whatever you desire to call a god, didn't you give it that label? if not, how else did you come to that conclusion?
"Moreover, the God who dwells in your subjectivity IS demonstrable to the most important person - namely, yourself. It doesn't need to be demonstrable to anyone else - any more than your love of truth, beauty, country, sports team, spouse, or pets needs to be provable to anyone else. It demonstrates itself to you, and that is all that is necessary."
precisely, its arbitrary, non conformant and (seemingly) made up in your vision. which means nothing to anyone else but the creator (you) of the creator (god).
if that's what you're referencing, then more power to you, but that's not the deity for which I am referencing.
"Biased, uninformed words will not help your argumentation. No humming of sweet nothings is involved whatsover, which you would know if you had made even the most cursory investigation. What you call "nothings" are essential signposts on the path to the divine."
now you're just being defensive as I attempt to mock a pseudo practice of religion. again, there is no proof prayer or meditation connects you w/ a divine being or entity or spirit. then again, it gets back to defining what your particular god is or does. you get to make the interpretations while no one else gets to object because you get to define the terms and conditions on the fly w/ no order, no rhyme or reason. just how you define it w/ no checks and balances. its anarchy. there is no other way around it.
for example: if I have a personal god, and you call BS and somehow we try to find common ground in efforts to somehow quantify the god we'll never reach it because it is immaterial and not bound by anything. what is that? you call it god, I call it huh? its just a label you given to something or better yet, nothing.
in my head, here's how this conversation would go down
me: so, you believe in god?
you: absolutely!
me: what is it?
you: its [my] god.
me: how do you define it?
you: [whatever answer you give]
me: how did you determine that?
you: because its [my] god.
me: so, the definition of the god you gave was bestowed upon you by that god?
you: yes.
me: okay. how did you determine that was god that gave it to you?
you: because, its [my] god.
me: pardon me, but it sounds like you created this
you: no [my] god told me this.
me: how do you know this?
you: because he's [my] god. he lives w/in me.
me: . [jaw on the floor] .
it just appears this line of thinking is just a cavalcade of illogical beliefs and assertions created in your brain. and you're choosing to call and label this thing god. but of course, that's not it. and im sure you'll(try)and explain to me how its not.
"That's too bad, because God isn't about facts and figures, but is, rather, a nonmaterial Transcendent."
how do you know that? because you've defined it that way? because a lot of people have their own definition of god - what it is and what it can and can't do. is this because its YOUR god and not shared w/ or by anyone else?
"You say you'd accept the existence of a God, but since God is not physically quantifiable - and therefore not subject to facts and figures - you just disqualified yourself from your own God-search as defined by yourself."
however, you just defined your own god using your own variables. is that not the definition of fiction when you create something? remember, you said its "non-material & transcendent". that's YOUR god you created it. if you didn't create it, you'd have to define and demonstrate how you came to the knowledge that its not anything other that what you say it is.
"The contemplative ways that I mentioned don't create gods for you; rather, they conduct you into the divine Presence."
how do you know because you say so? because that's how your particular god works?
"But your saying the opposite does nothing to substantiate your claim. And my claim can potentially be substantiated by your reading the myriad texts on divine union mysticism, and by your engaging in the techniques that are said to result in gnosis. By your refusal to do either, you are proving that your God-search is bound to be doomed before it even begins."
nope. it appears that your efforts to support a deity comes by way of some sort of 'inner' knowledge/spirit (whatever you want to call it) that cannot or at leas -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 09:07 PM)
then how can you spot it?
As I explained, it's like when you spot your toothache, your favorite music, your love of your pets, etc. Easy kinds of things to spot - like when you have a new idea or a hunch. You know it when it happens.
can I call the warm and fuzzy feelings after I pray [
"TO"
} god?
No, for reasons already stated, not to mention the fact that I informed you that I myself do not pray.
its arbitrary, non conformant and (seemingly) made up in your vision
No, as I said before, it's not made up. It's there already. You discover it.
there is no proof prayer or meditation connects you w/ a divine being or entity or spirit
Which you wouldn't know unless you've tried. You haven't, and you show no inclination toward doing so. Your loss, not mine.
if I have a personal god, and you call BS and somehow we try to find common ground in efforts to somehow quantify the god we'll never reach it because it is immaterial
As I already said, THIS God cannot be quantified in any public manner. But it can be a shared experience producing a same or similar conclusion. That refers to the three steps of knowledge-acquisition in which you seem to have no interest.
<"That's too bad, because God isn't about facts and figures, but is, rather, a nonmaterial Transcendent.">
how do you know that? because you've defined it that way?
I know it because I've experienced it - or perceived it - that way. The
definition
is an
interpretation
based on a divine union
experience
. Nobody told me, although the universal similarity of such experiences is highly indicative of a common Source being involved in them.
<"You say you'd accept the existence of a God, but since God is not physically quantifiable - and therefore not subject to facts and figures - you just disqualified yourself from your own God-search as defined by yourself.">
however, you just defined your own god using your own variables. is that not the definition of fiction
No, I defined my God-experience by my personal perception. I didn't get it from books, for example. If you put your hand on a red-hot stovetop, and say "It's hot!", are you making up your own definition of "heat"? Then if you watch others do the same thing and they say, "It's hot!", are they making up their own definition of the experience and the stovetop and the heat?
you said its "non-material & transcendent". that's YOUR god you created it
No, I discovered it.
It was already there. I didn't create it.
Others have had the same experience and they too call God nonmaterial and transcendent. In fact, the only spiritual system that I am aware of that does NOT so declare God is Pantheism, which conflates God with the material world.
<"The contemplative ways that I mentioned don't create gods for you; rather, they conduct you into the divine Presence.">
how do you know because you say so?
Not at all, as I've been saying repeatedly. Not "because I say so", but because I have
experienced
God in this manner.
it appears that your efforts to support a deity comes by way of some sort of 'inner' knowledge/spirit (whatever you want to call it) that cannot or at least is not attained by a natural universe.
It's not an appearance, it's a reality that we do know God as a personal experience in our
inner
selves. And I never claimed that it is attainable by a natural universe. In fact, I claimed the opposite. YOU are the one insisting that God be discoverable by "facts and figures" related to
this
universe. I never made such an impossible claim.
how would you stop me from defining my own god, and then having me place the burden of proof on to you, or to try and disprove it?
I wouldn't be interested in supporting or discouraging you in putting forth your own ideas about God. So far, you've been doing fine on your own.
its an exercise in futility. its trying to prove a negative
Not at all: it's a simple statement that
God can be as much an object of experience
as are your love of your pets, your favorite music or sports team, your knowing when you have an itch or a toothache, your knowing that you've worked out a math problem - all subjective, and REAL, experiences. There is nothing empty or esoteric about my claim. And as I have pointed out, it is acquirable spontaneously and through meditative/contemplative practices, i.e., "gnostic" acquisition of spiritual knowing. It is not about belief or making stuff up.
all gods had to start somewhere. we had to hear about it somehow
Not "ALL" gods. The God I'm discussing, as I've said a dozen times before, is
already within us
, awaiting discovery. It isn't a deity conveyed to us by society, philosophy, or organized religion. In fact, It is often in conflict with the "given" social narratives. We don't need to hear about it somehow - we only need to come across it as we look within, as happens in contemplative practice.
you accept some 'inner' personal god - a non-demonstrable deity
No, I don't accept or put faith in the inner personal God. I don't need to, because that God is an -
jrock2310 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 03:05 AM)
"As I explained, it's like when you spot your toothache, your favorite music, your love of your pets, etc. Easiest thing to spot."
that's a bad analogy. a tooth ache is suggestive of an actual, demonstrable tooth. you're trying to connect this feeling you get (whatever that is) and labeling it to or from a god.
my favorite music is a subjective choice. you're trying to say when I hear a song I like I don't choose it, it chooses me. my preference to something doesn't perpetuate or call for a sort of majestic encounter or experience. no evidence of a spirit or intervening (non-physical) presence. you're just arbitrarily connecting those two things together w/ nothing more than your preferred ideology.
"No, as I said before, it's not made up. It's there already. You discover it."
what is "IT"? can you explain "IT"? how did you discover "IT"? more over, whatever "IT" is, how did you identify that's what "IT" is?
"Which you wouldn't know unless you've tried. You haven't, and you show no inclination toward doing so. Your loss, not mine."
bro i was "Christian" for over 20+ years. how could you assert that ive never tired something when you don't know me? you're just showing your ignorance.
"As I already said, THIS God cannot be quantified in any public manner. But it can be a shared experience producing a same or similar conclusion. That refers to the three steps of knowledge-acquisition in which you seem to have no interest."
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - you have none - therefore, it is dismissed like all the others who assert anomalies: big foot, loch ness, tooth fairies, leprechauns, aliens, etc
and no, I have no interest in someone peddling a 'how to' or 'steps to' book in efforts to sell a product. I won't waste my time w/ such nonsense. the book itself may be informative, but as it relates to this topic of deities, its completely rubbish. the book doesn't give you step to reach any sort of divineness. if you claim it does, I have some beach front property to sell you on mars.
"I know it because I've experienced it - or perceived it - that way. The definition is an interpretation based on a divine union experience. Nobody told me, although the universal similarity of such experiences is highly indicative of a common Source being involved in them."
so you admit that its YOUR perception and YOUR interpretation, meaning its what YOU make of it. which has no affect on anyone else or our natural universe. which means YOU can define it. we just have to accept that you have this something special w/no conceptual way of actually identifying it.
for example, you'll never be wrong on any of your points, because you can merely keep moving the goal posts and redefining it to fit the narrative you wish. conversely, I couldn't possibly be right, because I don't know what "IT" is, nor did I experience "IT".
essentially, you're just going to say whatever you want to win the argument because we're debating ideologies "my god is different from your god, blah blah blah". we'll never get anywhere like this.
*side note: I am curious as to what your experience was, and if it could be rationally, justifiably, logically explained.
"No, I defined my God-experience by my personal perception. I didn't get it from books, for example. If you put your hand on a red-hot stovetop, and say "It's hot!", are you making up your own definition of "heat"? Then if you watch others do the same thing and they say, "It's hot!", are they making up their own definition of the experience and the stovetop and the heat?"
HUZZAH!! THANK YOU! you're using a demonstrable, human experience. the hot stove is going to be hot because that is a consistent, methodological human experience. if we place our hand on a hot stove we are going to move it because it is proven to hurt - therefore - we remove our hand.
YOU PROVED MY POINT!
now make the same correlation to a deity/higher power using the same methodology that EVERYONE else would experience exactly the same as the hot stove analogy.
what would the exercise be that we could test (like the hot stove) that would consistently show us that an deity was/is responsible? by that I mean we could consistently run this test over and over again, thus proving your god hypothesis.
we live in the same cognitive reality. meaning, we experience things generally the same. why does the 'stove' exercise ring true for all, but not the 'god' proposition.
"No, I discovered it. It was already there. I didn't create it. Others have had the same experience and they too call God nonmaterial and transcendent. In fact, the only spiritual system that I am aware of that does NOT so declare God is Pantheism, which conflates God with the material world."
WHAT IS "IT"??? until you can define "IT", I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! and not everybody calls god "non-material". that's merely YOUR perception of YOUR god. do you not see the dilemma here? you've admitt -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 02:14 PM)
Me:
All along, I've consistently offered you the definitions AND THE MEANS for discovery of the inner Divinity. Now I have even supplied you with the three steps of knowledge acquisition, which are necessary and feasible for both physical and spiritual knowledge-acquirement.
You:
yea, brah I took your totally tubular test - fart sound maybe I forgot to wear my magic crystal necklace
= = = = =
Me:
Share your Conclusions with others who have adequately performed Steps 1. and 2. (this part of the process is called "peer review" and works in religion like the example of the Zendo where the sensei tests the meditating students' Conclusions for accuracy and truthfulness).
You:
OH MAN YOU WERE RIGHT. I SAT AROUND AND PRAYED/MEDITATED AND FOLLOWED THESE BRILLIANT WORLD-TILTING CONCEPTS AND farts in a jar
= = = = =
And that is why, from this point on, this conversation is over from my end. And, of course, you
didn't
take the test, "tubular" or not, you didn't bother to investigate the issue by practicing even one of the 114-plus methods specifically designed for the purpose. You never decided to read even one book concerning the subject at hand (or if you actually did any of these things, you never acknowledged having done so). You did fart at least twice, but that doesn't count as effort or investigation.
Your behavior is no different from those astronomers who refused, out of fear, to look through Galileo's telescope, because their ideological terror was such that they knew that seeing Jupiter's moons would shatter their worldview. I offered you the lenses but you refused them - refused to acknowledge their efficacy, without even once trying them, while at the same time you mocked the very idea of personal experimentation toward spiritual knowledge-acquisition. The spiritual search is new and unfamiliar to you, and instead of settling down and doing some reading and practicing a few of the offered methods, you launched a barrage of empty objections; empty because you outright refused to perform the Injunction, do the Experiment, and share the Conclusions with those who have gone before you and who have adequately practiced Steps 1) and 2).
Seeing your response to exposure to this unfamiliar material, one can only conclude that you're just as queasy about science - which requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new words and concepts - as you are about spirituality. You stated that a headache correlates to your head; wellGod-experience correlates to your heart. But since, as a materialist, you seem only to acknowledge literal body-talk, the metaphorical language of the heart, and its innate relationship to the language of Spirit, will always elude you. Apparently, in your world, no allegories are permissible, even-and-especially when they express truths that cannot be expressed either scientifically or philosophically.
You're not a bad guy, but there's just no point in attempting to further this discussion. So long. -
jrock2310 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 12:28 AM)
"And that is why, from this point on, this conversation is over from my end. And, of course, you didn't take the test, "tubular" or not, you didn't bother to investigate the issue by practicing even one of the 114-plus methods specifically designed for the purpose. You never decided to read even one book concerning the subject at hand (or if you actually did any of these things, you never acknowledged having done so). You did fart at least twice, but that doesn't count as effort or investigation."
you still don't get it remember back a few posts ago when I told you that I was once Christian? I did my fair share of praying and nothing. this was a sincere belief (at least I though I was sincere, there's no way of knowing) and I sincerely prayed often. daily, in fact.
you made it abundantly clear that you do not pray, but rather meditate. sorry, bro I don't believe in meditation as a way of connecting w/ spirits or deities. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT!
but lets say for example I told you that I did all your steps and nothing what would you say to that? how would you be able to judge if im being sincere or not? DO YOU NOT SEE HOW DUMB THIS ALL IS? how can you trust me if I told you that I did your steps and did find god? how would you know that's true, because it worked for you? YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT I TELL YOU IS LEGITIMATE OR NOT! YOU HAVE NO CONTRAST!!! you have to come off it already. gullibility is not a good look ever.
as for your second paragraph, I will only address one aspect of it the rest is just rambling. here's what I am curious about are you asserting that if I did your steps and was sincere, that I WOULD get a result? meaning god would appear to me? or that its only possible that god could appear to me? is this plan full-proof? because you realize if this works, you've just solved the greatest inquiry in the history of mankind. you would carry the nobel prize you will be granted every prestigious award in the fields of discovery. you will certainly be the most famous person OF ALL TIME. and all it took was- some meditation.
- note taking.
- report of your findings.
- and a bowl of sincerity.
"Seeing your response to exposure to this unfamiliar material, one can only conclude that you're just as queasy about science - which requires an open mind and a willingness to learn new words and concepts - as you are about spirituality. You stated that a headache correlates to your head; wellGod-experience correlates to your heart. But since, as a materialist, you seem only to acknowledge literal body-talk, the metaphorical language of the heart, and its innate relationship to the language of Spirit, will always elude you. Apparently, in your world, no allegories are permissible, even-and-especially when they express truths that cannot be expressed either scientifically or philosophically." - you still haven't defined what this "material" is, or how you would know what "it" is. you're the one giving it labels im just holding your feet to the flames on your assertions. don't get mad at me.
- I have no objections w/ science. science is methodological. you're dealing w/ metaphysical. science does not enter that realm, yet you keep attempting to make a connection.
- as far as we know, the heart pumps blood. it doesn't do anything else. your heart and my heart are no different. there is no evidence that your heart does any whimsical decision making. the heart is a pump - it pumps blood through our veins. that's all it does. that may sound a little harsh, but its what you need to hear - some harsh truth.
- you keep bringing up a "spirit" and like you've continued to do, you keep giving me these oddities that you can't identify or define w/out appealing to your own definition. what is a spirit? and don't think I haven't taken notice of the fact that you've managed to dodge every question of defining or observation.
- and its not true that I don't express my self in the two-form or the worldy banter. I say god damn all the time, yet, I don't believe in god. I say im heartbroken when im sad, knowing im not actually heartbroken.
but it is you that takes these colloquial idioms and uses them in literal terms in efforts to support illogicalities. but when I hold your feet to the flame and make you have to answer for them you totally dismiss it or negate it outright, as if im the one making claims w/out evidence.
now, you may be dismissed.
-
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 01:07 AM)
I ended my part of the discussion in a gentlemanly manner, letting you know I would not be continuing on with it. You wrote:
now, you may be dismissed
Okay, then. Just more overconfident arrogance, so:
Now you may be - in fact, you have been - -
jrock2310 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 10:07 AM)
the conversation was over the second you couldn't defend your positions. you just ranted and raved about nothing more than your perception of you reality. then go on to say the thing you're trying to defend is NOT of this reality.
welp, we live in THIS universe. we don't live outside of it, we can't conceive of anything beyond it yet you seem certain that you have this connection to something beyond.
and if you cannot support that claim - your claim is dismissed.
lastly, you say the word "gentlemanly", but you have no concept of gentlemanly. do you want to know what I consider gentlemanly honesty. I don't consider gentlemanly having someone lie to my face w/ virtually every sentence they jot down.
I find that very disrespectful. but im the a-hole for forcing you to actually review your beliefs.
you don't know it yet, and you may never see it this way but im the one trying to help you.
good day. -
raif-1 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 05:34 PM)
I don't know Bastasch but I think jrock is really trying and when he said he's trying to help you, I actually felt his sincerity and his honesty. In other words, I believe him. Like you said he's not a bad guy just some misunderstanding and miscommunication
-
raif-1 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 05:29 PM)
welp, we live in THIS universe. we don't live outside of it, we can't conceive of anything beyond it yet you seem certain that you have this connection to something beyond.
Reminded me of Dr Strange movie. Initially he too discounted other realities, believing only what he could see and fathom in other words our good olde universe. Although that is only a movie, imo there is some truth to it but as mere mortals like us, it is imho good to know about the beyond but never meddle in it. It is with good reason that GOD allowed us to exist in this current universe, this tangible reality as we know it but we are allowed some glimpse and knowledge about the beyond. Consider this quran verses:
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -Who believe in the
unseen
, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them, (Quran Al-Baqarah 2-3)
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , Lord of the
worlds- (Al-Fatihah 2)
O children of Adam, let not Satan tempt you as he removed your parents from Paradise, stripping them of their clothing to show them their private parts. Indeed, he sees you, he and his tribe, from where you do not see them. Indeed, We have made the devils allies to those who do not believe. (Quran 7:27)
The third verse above suggest that Satan and his tribe (demons/djinn) sees man from a place (perhaps another alternate reality?) but we ourselves cannot see them when they are in that place/reality. Of course some demons do make themselves appear in our reality and that is when some can see them.
Back to our topic. We are put on this earth according to the Quran as a temporary place before we are called back by GOD and judged for what we did here on earth.
https://muslimsforallah.com/why-are-we-here-2/
It is when we die do we cross over to the beyond, then we are fully aware of it. Like you said, we live in this universe so if you don't experience the beyond (as are the majority including me), imo you're not really missing anything. In fact for some that do, it is not entirely guaranteed that what they're experiencing is divine. Except for prophets sent by GOD, any "experience" should be deemed as sceptical because demons are always there to tempt humans and trick us.
- (Al-Fatihah 2)
-
jrock2310 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 06:12 PM)
let me be clear I never suggested god doesn't or can't exist. I merely specified there being no evidence to suggest one does exists.
until someone can give immutable evidence/proof for one, then it is a fallacious stance.
im all for the existence of a god - bring it on! just wake me up when you have something significant. we'll research it, test it, and we'll go from there.