How could God prove that He is God?

A being that would respond to any request to prove that he is God would actually be demonstrating that he is not God.   The unlimited nature of the concept of God is entirely inconsistent with this scenario.

I don't see why that need be the case.

In fact, according to anecdotal evidence from many ancient documents (including the Bible), God has often done various things designed to convince people that He is God -- with or without being asked.  

Actually, the "burning bush" of the Moses/Ten Commandsments story is a perfect case in point.  Anyone reading this could have easily convinced Moses of your godliness by a putting battery-operated flashlight behind the bush.

Good point.  My opinion is that those references are actually problematic for a valid theology.   Apparently there has been an old inclination to reduce God to a level that is qualitatively similar to us.  That's not surprising, but it leads directly to many conflicts such as this notion of how God would prove himself to us.

DanRollins > Title: How could God prove that He is God?

I think first He'd be wise to ask Her permission

"How could God prove that He is God?"

Greetings,

Do we think God think (like we think using our brain?)

When God says in (my) holy book, "God sees whatever u do, God knows wherever u are" do we dare judging God sees using God's eyes and knows using God's sense?

(my) God is so very extremely great, so i will not dare to use my human words / my human sense / my human thinking to try to be implemented to (my) God.

If God use human words like "think" "see" "know" in holy books, are just for human to GET EASIER to understand about God "himself".

Why not we carefully using our human words to be implemented to God related? (atheist do not have to answer this).

2nd point, logic analogy
in my country:
1. words DONT have accent, like in english  mature and nature
2. syllables DONT have changing sound, i mean saying "i" will be sounding "i" in any words NOT like in english "ich" "IT" ect
3. words DONT have tenses, i go tomorrow, i go yesterday, i go now
4. words DONT have tongue complex movement in ur mouth (except for the word "r"), like in arabic or english.
5. words collection in my language DONT have more than 1/3 english words collection.

You will see my point, my language is primitive (nope..that was just kidding),  I mean in human society on this earth we have found that words amongs country being used so much differently.

How can we be sure, God that we believe is so great is using word "think"? if u cant be sure, then please stop using word "think" on God. unless for you to try to get to know who God is, easier, as next poing says:

3rd point,
Human were created in limited design, anything in us. This is destiny for human, like it or not. But God didnt leave human alone without guidance (using words / languages that fits to those limited design things in us).

4th point,
If someone THEIST here doesnt believe point 3, what do we expect God to do to us? to show God right in front of our eyes? talking on a stage every weekend? if so, we would be worshiping God right now! coz we wont have pros cons here, like the angles (not charlie's ones). and there would be no concepts creating human and their destiny anymore, no destiny of human choosing path right/wrong anymore.

Cheers

DanRollins > How could God prove that He is God?

By proving that there is no other gods.

Some nice responses.
I'd like to bypass the constellation of issues regarding whether or not God would or should respond to some specific request.  To avoid that, let's posit a situation in which, *for whatever reason,* He chose to reveal Himself and chose to do so in a way that would be utterly convincing to a modern scientist.

I have thought of a few possibilities:

1) Causality; Time's Arrow.  
As humans, we see events as happening one after another, like beads on a string.   A child is four years old for a while, then he becomes a 5-yr-old.  An egg is whole, then it has been cracked and scrambled into an omelete.   Once a glass of milk gets spilled all over the floor, it can't suddenly get "unspilled."

It seems to me that God, who is presumably not constrained by time's arrow, could demonstrate something that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics or otherwise show a convincing *effect* that occurs before its *cause.*  Or do something that required time to "rewind" (xref divdove's http:#a18613390 comment).

2) Affect/Change an action that cannot be controlled.  
A nuclear scientist might be convinced if well-understood random quantum activities, such as the decay of a radioactive isotope, could be predicted or controlled (e.g., in a large sample, all activity stops for 1 week, then exactly three atoms decay on demand).

3) Something large -- astonomically large...
...Such as turning off all of the stars in exactly one half of the sky or bringing the Earth's Moon to rest in Iowa.  A scientist might be convinced if he was certain that the *impossible* action would take more nergy than was available.

=-=--=-==-=--=
Items # 2 and 3 are not as convincing as item #1 -- a sufficently advanced technology might be able to do such things -- or (perhaps more likely), might be able to "mind control" the observer into thinking that the action occurred.

That's why this is a difficult question.

Btw, in the Bible Jesus brought the dead back to life. This was done with the power of god, but would Jesus be god or not. I personally don't think Jesus is almighty god so, Godly acts can be done by people who are not god.
So what act can only god almighty do, Create the very first thing. Know when all created things will end if that is on the cards that is. Know when the end will come (Revelations end that is.)

Judge by the fruit and not by the tree. Basically read and study the word (The Bible). Satan will come as a light, just as Christ will. If you read and follow the word completely, the true light will shine though.

LOL (or was that not a joke?)

I was hoping for serious comments here, not regurgitated Sunday School pablum.

Divdove, How can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe the New Testament?
"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (1Jo 5:20)

Then this chat is one sided. You are looking for scientific proof not the truth.

Hahahahahahhahahah.

> How could God prove that He is God?

By changing the laws of physics. The only problem with that is that whoever was looking for that proof would be destroyed in the process. They wouldn't even have a nanosecond to start forming the thought "thanks dude!"

>>"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God"

"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God , and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. "

>By changing the laws of physics.
in my holy books, it states God will not change the laws of physics (sort of), until the end of the day.
so i doubt any human being can change it. Sorry Pino, just a matter of belief, cant argue with u on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_physics

Now back to the question:

>>How could God prove that He is God?

By proving that he exists.

Hi wr, certainly, no human being can change the laws of physics. All they can do is find better and better theories to describe the "true" laws of physics ultimate form.

I certainly do hope that God won't change the laws of physics. If they change, the whole Universe will be rended asunder. The only good thing would be it would happen the very moment God did it so nobody would have time to notice it.

Pino, I like u much when u are being calm. U seem like an angel. a boy version one of course.

> U seem like an angel.

I don't know about angels but I have the patience of a saint. But even saints reach the end of their tether sometimes.

Looking at this issue with the assumption that God exists while we remain in doubt of His existence leads to another possibility.  Instead of framing this as a call for God to prove Himself, it could be framed as a call for us to discover and withdraw our denial of Him:

If God exists
and we doubt it
then either
1) He is hiding
or
2) We are looking away

The idea that God could exist and hide from His creation is simply absurd.
So there is reason to consider option 2.  My opinion is that this is the ideal realm for religion to operate in.  The religious ideal would then be to help us learn to see and remove our own inclination to deny God.  In this approach there would not be much value in any self-righteousness.

WvB,
No need to *change* the laws of physics... simply perform a convincing act that indisputably *violates* one or more of the laws of physics.  For instance, travel faster than light, or hold a black hole in the palm of your hand.

=-=-=-=-=-=
An addition to the list I starrted at http:#a18619584

4)  Show something that proves that physical laws were designed, not accidental.   For instance, in the SF novel, "Contact" the protagonist discovered that if you calculate pi out far enough, you come to a series of 1s and 0s that looks like:
   3.1415926535...
       ...0123456789
   11111111111111
   11111000011111
   11110000001111
   11000000000011
   10000000000001
   11000000000011
   11110000001111
   11111000011111
   11111111111111
   9876543210...
(a perfect circle of zeros inscribed in a square of ones).

While the person who demonstrates such a thing has not proven himself to be God, showing that fact (or showing something even more dramatic that is built into the fabric of the universe) could be evidence of God's existance.

To convincingly prove that one is God, one might change such a physical law.  For instance, you run your computer to calculate pi in base 11 to one million places and you find the above sequence starting at the 900,000th digit.  Then God waves His wand, and tells you that the laws of the universe have changed.  You redo the calculation and find the same thing, except that the ones and zeros are reversed:

   3.1415926535...
       ...0123456789
   00000000000000
   00000111100000
   00001111110000
   00111111111100
   01111111111110
   00111111111100
   00001111110000
   00000111100000
   00000000000000
   9876543210...

>> By changing the laws of physics. The only problem with that is that
>> whoever was looking for that proof would be destroyed in the process.

In the above example, the change to the Laws of Nature could be detected, but would have no effect on human life.   Without actually doing the math, I'd guess that the digits of pi starting at the 900,000th decimal position would change calculations that involved circles many times larger than the size of the known universe by a radius far less than the width of an electron.

pi is not dependent on the laws of the physical universe, it is a mathematical constant

by the way, pi has now been calculated to over a trillion digits

Couldn't God change a mathematical constant?

It is said that the state of Alabama passed a law requiring pi to be exactly 3 (to match a description in the Bible and to help students gain self-esteem)  http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm

Can you think of a better example of a natural law that God could change to prove that He is Him?   His is That He Is, and all that?

BTW... Doesn't it seem rather *coincidental* and *arbitrary* that, for instance, the force of gravity falls off at rate that his *exactly* proportional to the square of the distance?  Why not some fractional exponent, such as the 1.756...th power?

*exactly* the square is what you'd expect if the universe is *exactly* 3 spatial dimensions, but the power had been experimentally measured for gravity to only about 1%
for electrical charges it's been measured to 13 digits.

> for electrical charges it's been measured to 13 digits.
make that 16 digits

> simply perform a convincing act that indisputably *violates* one or more of the laws of physics.

I have two alternative objections to that suggestion:

1) Firstly, it could be that all we're observing is an act by something technologically so advanced that it is aware of deeper "laws of physics" than us. Unless we're absolutely sure that we have found the *fundamental* laws of physics, the absolute "truth" about how nature works, we can never be sure that an act actually does violate those laws

OR

2) *actually* performing such an act is in fact equivalent to changing the laws of physics anyway. With the same result.

The "advanced technology" angle points out what is perhaps the crux of the problem.

The existance of God has never been proven... but it might be the case that it is something that simply *cannot* be proven.

However!  Scientific principles always start out as a vague hypothesis, then new details are found and the hypothesis is reformulated into a theory, and then the theory is tested, and it may be modified... Over time, consensus is reached where most scientists agree that what started as a "hypothesis" and evolved into a "theory" is actually a "fact."

All that is to make this point:
It seems to me that we would not need *100% certainty* in order to say with some confidence, "Yes! You are most likely God!  Thanks for dropping by and proving it and, by the way,  thanks for inventing cherry pie ala mode and sex."

>What task or question could we impose on God that, should he perform that task or answer that question, would >prove scientifically that He was God?

>How would we be able to be sure that He was not just using a vastly-advanced technology?  

Why approach God objectively? The eastern view on God is that it is the indweller of all things - the lifeforce - and if consciousness merges with that lifeforce, then it becomes none and one feels "God-like". People who have experienced this - known as "realistaion" can be said to possess the personality of God, or can even be called an incarnation. All our knowledge and anecdotal evidence of God comes from this subjective experience.

So, God is not some being, some magical thing, nor is it any "thing" to be found objectively, unless in the form of a personality, like perhaps Jesus , possibly Muhammad, certainly Krishna. Buddha went a step further and realised that he is neither the lifeforce nor the consciousness, but that which is aware of it. He didn't give it a name. It is, utlimately, what we are.  We are it. Nothing can touch it, it is not born so cannot die; and it is upon this that consciousness arose, and eventually consciousness will fade. But *it* remains unaffected. *It* can be referred to as *the stateless state*. So all these questions and all this speculation about God is waste of time. If you want to know where all this stuff about God comes from, investigate yourself. Everything starts with you, with "I am".

So I would also agree with wytcom's statement "A being that would respond to any request to prove that he is God would actually be demonstrating that he is not God. " 

> It seems to me that we would not need *100% certainty* in order to say with some confidence, "Yes! You are most likely God!

Yes we would, because according to many religious Dogmas one must believe absolutely in order to stand a chance of being saved. And the Opponent (say "Satan" or something) is often almost as powerful as God itself, so if you're not 100% sure, you could argue that you can never be sure that you hadn't been tricked by "Satan" and you'd end up believing that Satan was God. That would be a bad mistake, surely?

I've mooted this idea before, that the Bible, the Qu'ran or whatever book that was purportedly written by and/or inspired by God could instead have been written by or inspired by Satan. It would be the perfect con job. Make it sound *so* convincing that you're all about "good" and "justice" and "love" that you gain the poor dupe's trust, and then you've got their soul.... <insert evil cackle here>. It's *exactly* what a good Con artist does.

That is also why this insistence on blind trust is so suspect. You are always presented with reasons why God doesn't bother to prove himself. Well, the TRUE reason could be, because Jehovah is actually The Evil One. And he's winning <eek!>.

But think about this. God may be mysterious, unknowable, beyond our human intellect. But what we're debating here is *not* God. We're debating things like this:


"God exists"


That is not God. It's a statement. Just a human statement. The product of a human mind. That it is a statement about "GOD" doesn't alter that fact. As a statement, it is human. It is produced by a human - who is fallible - and it is subject to human forms of reasoning. It is entirely appropriate that such statements be subjected to scrutiny, logic and challenges. To do so is *not* an attack on God, it's an attack on lazy, faulty or inconsistent thinking .... by humans.

And the same goes for any holy book. They are books. That are written in *human languages*.

Even if we allowed for the possibility that God wrote those books, you're looking at the text through two filters. The first filter is the filter God had to apply to translate his Divine thoughts into human words. The second filter is that of your fallible human brain interpreting the fallible human text into your own fallible human concepts. It is beyond ridiculous for somebody to insist that absolute truth could be known through those means.

And I didn't even add translation, which adds another filter: the ability of the translator. Most people do not read their religious texts in the language in which they first appeared.

If God wrote those holy books, even before they were translated, God may highly want to consider learning proper grammar.

Considering I don't speak or read Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Arab, Sanskrit.... whatever, I can't really comment :P

I think that Jason210's comment (and wytcom's assertion) and other posts are pointing out that perhaps not only can the question not be answered... perhaps it is not even a meaningful question to *ask* !!!

It assumes a human-like embodiment (or at least aspect) of God -- something that is not in evidence.

This might be like a housecat musing to itself that perhaps the Magical Food Dish will explain to it how it comes to produce kibbles that somethimes taste like salmon and sometimes taste like chicken.  That is... it so misunderstands the universe (has such a narrow focus) that it can't even form meaningful questions.

Or the question *really* is meaningless. We can all say "square circle" but just because the concept exists doesn't mean that it corresponds with anything in reality. We may have a concept of "God" that doesn't actually correspond with anything that is real. The fact that believers are unable to communicate this concept to someone to whom it is alien is the most convincing sign to me that that might be the case. It's not because we misunderstand the universe that we can't answer this question, but because the concept of "God" is more slippery than an eel in a bucket full of snot.

They forgot God, and He made them forget themselves.

>Or the question *really* is meaningless.

I think it's good to keep asking questions though. The fact that we keep on asking and wondering means that questioning does have some importance.

I really only have one thing to say to everyone asking these questions: Carry by all means with the questioning, investigate thoroughly everything. Understand. But understand also that understanding will only take you so far, because understanding is still conceptual, and you are still objectifying your search.

> because understanding is still conceptual

Yes. But so is *everybody's* understanding. And proper concepts can be communicated. If somebody claims they understand that God is real, they must be able to communicate this understanding to other people. If they can't, they're most likely lying.

>Yes. But so is *everybody's* understanding. And proper concepts can be communicated. If somebody claims they understand >that God is real, they must be able to communicate this understanding to other people. If they can't, they're most likely lying.

When you wake up in the morning, the first thing that happens is some chemistry in your brain stirs and produces the sudden feeling of "I am". Consider "I am" to be the primary concept. Then more concepts follow. You are awake, consciousness, processing the world around you.

But prior to the appearance of "I am" what were you? When "I am" appeared, before the other concepts, what were you then? How can you effectively communicate these states conceptually? You can write about them like this, but without experiencing them first hand, you don't know them.

I'm not talking about *feelings*. I'm talking about an *understanding*.

This is the problem. I used the word feeling, but it was the wrong word. There is no word to describe the state because it is not a feeling, nor a thought. Now how can it be understood, descreibed and conveyed, other than by experiencing it?

The same way any other thing is understood? By applying reason to what you're experiencing?

Ok, well, you do it then :-)

Everyone wakes up in the morning...everyone experiences these states...I don't think we always remember the transition between the states, but it occurs none-the-less. You don't doubt that it occurs?

> Ok, well, you do it then :-)

I don't believe that God exists. And I have been quite able to communicate my reasons for *not* believing  that God exists.

With regard to mind states, whatever they *are*, insofar we *understand* them there is a lot of literature that communicates this understanding. A belief that God exists is supported by a reason. A person doesn't just believe this, they believe this *because* of something. And that reason should be communicable.

I have often asked for this, and a few times I get responses. These are never satisfactory; the logic is usually flawed. The next step, usually, is to resort to calling it "mystical" and "beyond human understanding". It may *sound* deep but it's just a pathetic attempt to shut the asker up.

And I'm telling you the reason. What you call "mind states" is the reason. Forget all the stuff written in various scriptures - that's just a fruit-salad of words.

God is a concept, a word, that is often more of a hinderance than a help. It arises out of the experience of when one becomes conscious of the energy, or lifeforce, of the body. God can mean many things to many people. As you said, "God is more slippery than an eel in a bucket full of snot".

It's much more interesting to deabte the idea of the lifeforce, and discuss what the "Lifeforce" is, the so called "Prana" of the east. Put simply, it's a set of linked energy patterns, the net prupose of which is support the vital systems that sustain the body and consciousness.

The stance of a believer: this is just as confusing was the word "God". There as many kinds and levels of believers as there are Gods. Ultimately, a believer is one who believes, rather than knows. What more is there to say? The belief is enough for them. Let them be in their beliefs. In a way they have surrended conceptual thought, and found peace of mind. It is unreasonable and unfair to demand off them reasons and proofs.

>"beyond human understanding".
May be they know what they are talking about but just can't convey it. There are things that are beyond understanding. The awareness that is aware of concepts, is beyond concepts, and therefore beyond understanding.

>"It may *sound* deep but it's just a pathetic attempt to shut the asker up."
It some cases you are probably right, in other cases perhaps they start to talk and find themselves out of their depth. In some cases, may be even lying - though I suspect that does not happen as much as the former two.

>It is unreasonable and unfair of them to demand of me unquestioning belief.
What, do you mean you get Catholic priests regularly knocking on your door and requesting your presence for the Sunday Service? Does that still go on in Ireland?

>why were the likes of Thomas Aquinas so eager to publish what they
>thought were logical arguments proving the existence of God?
>Because they *know* that without those, their belief is a hollow shell.

Remember in his day far less was known about psychology and how the mind works. They did not have access to the anecdotal eveidence of the east. Those eager to embark on a spirtual path had basically two choices: the Bible, or some occult thing. Any occult business was likely to get you burned. The Bible, relying heavily on allegory, and symbolism, is always in danger of being completely misunderstood. That's why I said to you to forget about all that and I find out who you are. There are various ways of approaching this, that whilst requiring some trust, or faith in the beginning, do not require beliefs as an ongoing thing. It's like a child being afraid to open its eyes under water in swimming pool. If a stranger says, open your eyes, you are not likely to do as he says. But if someone whom you trust, such as a parent, says "open your eyes, it won't hurt", you might eventually do it. Once you've done it, you no longer need to trust; and you wonder what all the fuss was about.

And, I guess, because underneath it all, they know that reason and logic are the only avenues open to humans for getting a handle on the truth. And so, whenever they feel reason, logic, or scientific discovery supports their belief, they jump at the opportunity to show this to the world with the eagerness of a starved dog. If one then uses that same reason, logic or scientific method to expose flaws in the arguments, suddenly it is declared that "logic and reason are not able to fathom the mystery of God".

One cannot cherrypick. One cannot accept those lines of reasoning, those applications of logic, those scientific discoveries that suit one's preconceived ideas, and rejecting or ignoring those that don't or that even contradict them. The package comes as a whole. A belief is a *choice*. And for every choice there is a reason. One may not be immediately aware of it, but it can be discovered through introspection.

The reason most religious believers are unwilling to bare their souls is that they *know* their true reasons for believing will not stand up to scrutiny. And they *need* them to be. Because if they were happy that they weren't, then they'd be happy to admit "so, I believe in God because I feel I need to. It may not make logical sense, but that doesn't bother me". The problem is, it *does* bother them. And this causes a conflict. If one cannot justify one's belief by reason, and one cannot accept that as Ok, then one needs to weasel one's way out from under the pressure. Or lose face.

> What, do you mean you get Catholic priests regularly knocking on your door and requesting your presence for the Sunday Service?

No, what I mean is that a person's decision to believe that, for example, the only road to Salvation is Through Jesus Christ, means that they must, by necessity, look down on people who do not, or cannot, follow that road. And of course they will protest almightily against this assessment. It is *god* who decided that this is the only way. It is the person *themselves* who, by failing to follow that road, chooses to miss out on salvation. I've heard it all before. But no matter who the failure is attributed to, the end result is still a condemnation of the non-believer. That is as despicable as racism as far as I'm concerned, and that is why it needs to be brought up. Racism doesn't go away if it is ignored, and neither does religious bigotry, no matter how well it is disguised from the possessor's consciousness.

Jason210
>and I find out who you are

That should have read "and find you who you are"

I hope you realised that, WVB!
------------------------------------------------------------
WVB
>they know that reason and logic are the only avenues open to humans for getting a handle on the truth
Yes but very few know how to use reason and logic in this sense. Also, you must remember that not everyone in the world lives by reason and logic, and therefore don't require an answer in that format.

But let's take a look at those who are into reason and logic, which I guess includes you. Reason and logic has lead you to where you are today - into a conceptual world that is expanding as you add more and more concepts, or attempt to combine concepts into one unified one, in an attempt to understand the universe. Reason and logic led you to this present state of consciousness.

The role of reason and logic in this quest for you then, is to lead you back. Back to the beginning of reason and logic. By the mind you entered, and by the mind can you return...

Sooner or later, your conceptual world will start to deteriorate with old age. You will lack the energy to pursue new ideas, you will forget, and eventually, you will die, and as you die, all your concepts and ideas will simply be stripped from you, and cease to be. Or...do you believe that you're going to find some sort of ultimate answer to everything, by pursuing your current path of forming new concepts? By understanding. Do you believe this Pino?

I'm sure many "reason and logic" people do believe this. They are hoping, believing that one day, all will make sense, and they will, as Stephen Hawking naively once remarked, "know the mind of God".  Reason and logic tells me that they will not, because they will get old and die. Pooff!

>is *god* who decided that this is the only way.
Reason and logic people are doomed too. All people just fade away...sooner or later. As for God believers, well, that belief might sustain them while they are alive, but when they begin to die, and pass into a semi-conscious state, where are the beliefs? Where is God? Nothing matters - I exhale my last breath, and die.

However, if realised while living  that "I" never existed as an entity - that it's existence is just an illusion, and that everything experienced is in consciousness, and that consciousness appeared in what is ultimately awareness, and will likewise disappear, from that awareness - awareness remains. So it's all down to what you take yourself to be - do you take yourself to be the body, the mind with all it's concepts, the consciousness, or the awareness which makes the consciousness possible? I *know* without a doubt that without that awareness (if this was at all possible), I may be technically alive, but there'd be no being or sentience in me. I'd be just an objective lump of flesh, a tumour.

> Yes but very few know how to use reason and logic in this sense. Also, you must remember that not everyone in the world lives by reason and logic, and therefore don't require an answer in that format.

Fair enough. But don't insist that others follow them down that road. A road carved out by logic and reason is one that others can follow. The signposts are clear. A road carved out by any other method is a lonely, personal path. I have no problem with anybody carving out such a path for themselves, as long as they have the grace to allow me carve out mine. And that means no bullshit about how others must believe as they do.

If you are interested in clearing up this whole issue with God, the Universe & everything,  then I suggest you use reason and logic to find out what you are - or rather what you are not ;-)

Anything else is mere diversion.

I think what is most important is that we as human beings accept that we are all in the dark about this to a large extent, rather than tell people we have answers that we cannot clarify. I'll be the very first to admit it: I have no clue about the nature of God, the Universe *or* everything. And anybody who thinks I'll go to Hell or something of that nature because of that can go jump in a lake.

>I have no clue about the nature of God, the Universe *or* everything.
>And anybody who thinks I'll go to Hell or something of that nature because
>of that can go jump in a lake.

Lol...of course. Admitting that we don't know is very good, and also happens to be the rational stance. The only point I want others to accept is that a conclusion cannot be reached from looking "out there" for it, unless that consclusion is an admission that we "don't know".  I think most people just don't pay any attention to the tool that is doing the searching, or question how they come to be aware of that tool. It's ok to investigate "out there"; it's fun, we have to do something while we are here; and it helps form the mind, helps develop consciousness, and if one investigates everything throughly, brings you back to square one. The resulting repository of knowledge can come in handy...

Well, I wonder if this has gone off topic. I don't think so. Because, in answer to the question, "How could God prove that He is God?" I would say, forget that. Start with yourself. Realise who or what you are,  then things might become a bit clearer...

:-)

You might be wanting to ask this question:

[[[ Is there an objective basis for distinguishing between a deity and a creature who leverages technology to pretend he is a deity? ]]]

The answer is NO:  

Knowledge is based upon: logic and input data.
Sufficiently advanced technologies could alter either of these two things.

I feel that I could convince at least one person on the planet that I am God.  Sure, I'd pick someone who was both stupid and uneducated, but I bet I could do it.  Many others have!

> Sure, I'd pick someone who was both stupid and uneducated

You wouldn't have far to go looking either.

Bob
>Knowledge is based upon: logic and input data.
Objective knowledge is based on that. But what about subjective knowledge? Or don't you consider that to be important?

I was wondering when you'd show up. I see you still haven't made the slightest bit of progress.

BobSiemens,
The original question was
    ... would prove scientifically that He was God?

(not provide enough disinformation to get an idiot to sway his opinion).  Scientific proof would surely include verifiable evidence, testable by using instruments that have proven to be reliable in the past.

The mind-control issue is a red-herring (ozo [if you are still subscribed], I did not miss the Winston Smith reference :-)... Saying that the goodhood claimant might (somehow) force you to believe whatever he says is, I think, a copout -- a way to avoid the question.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the being is somehow constrained from using mind control and that the subject(s) who he must coinvince are intelligent skeptical persons, versed in scientific methodology.

Dan
God, in the sense I have been putting forward, can either be experienced, or expressed through a person who has expereinced. Such an experience would be one who has realised what he or she is; or rather one whose consciousness has merged with the energy of the body. One who realises that there is actually no person - that its existence is an íllusion. Therefore I dislike the use of the word God, because the word God conjures images of some superbeing - how can such a thing be? Has such a being ever been observed? If it existed and prove what it is it would have done so long ago.  Look around you.  There is you, and the world. You the experiencer of the world. This is all you have to work with. Where can the idea of God fit in? What does it mean?

I don't undertand why you continue to pursue this line of questioning...why you're asking how a being could prove it is "God". Firstly you assume that such a being is going to be able to perform amazing feats. Whether it can perform such feats or not is irrelevant. Imagine an alien, superior to us, with such technological powers, that has God consciousness. That could also be an expression of "God".

There is no way for "God" of the "Supreme " to prove itself objectively, because it is happening within an individual, it is subjective.

Your question is like this. How can an advanced computer, that can mimick artificial intelligence, prove that it has consciousness? It cannot, because you can only ever see the outward signs, the objective part.

correction
>There is no way for "God" of the "Supreme " 

should have read

There is no way for "God" OR the "Supreme "

>You are asking for something more external.  How about transforming the world quickly into an Eden-like place?  >Or how about transporting every individual to another "planet" and talking to them.

Exactly. Why has this not happened? Because whatever God is, it's not a being that does magic things. A being is a being, made up of matter and energy. It can only operate according to physcial and chemical limiations as known by science.

<<<Exactly. Why has this not happened? Because whatever God is, it's not a being that does magic things. A being is a being, made up of matter and energy. It can only operate according to physical and chemical limitations as known by science.>>>

A more logical assumption is that God doesn't exist.  There isn't any reason to assume otherwise.

Essentially there is NO way that god chould 'prove his goodhood'. It nothing else we could always suspect the was the opposition (the devil).

I am not sure where you are intending to go with this. Bot the above appears to be the answer you want, and I agree with it sofar ;-))

>A more logical assumption is that God doesn't exist.  There isn't any reason to assume otherwise.

Logic is not a question of degree. A statement is either logical or it is not; an assumption is ansumption. You know that the onyl rational stance on this issue is of not knowing.

Whatever you may think or assume, how do explain the presence of anecdotal evidence in every single culture? Cultures that have evolved independantly? God may or may not be the word one would like to use - but something *is* going on.  Call it whatever you want, but ignoring it, or dismissing it, seems to me to be unreasonable.

an assumption is assumption I meant.

<<<Logic is not a question of degree. A statement is either logical or it is not; an assumption is assumption. You know that the onyl rational stance on this issue is of not knowing.>>>

You are wrong here.

If I flip a coin, is it logical to assume that the coin will balance on its side?  NO.
If I flip a coin, is logical to assume that the coin will NOT balance on its side?

Bob

No, I don't think I'm wrong.

Imagine a ship steaming across the Atlantic at night, at full speed, with nr navigation equipment like RADAR etc, just a look out stuck up in the mast who can't see much because it's too dark. It is known that there are icebregs in the area, but it's 1912, and it's common practice for ships to do this because the chances of hitting an iceberg are very low.

1) Is it logical to assume that the ship won't hit an iceberg?
2) Is it safe to assume the ship won't hit an iceberg?

The only logic that applies here is probablity. If the probablity is greater than zero, then the ship is taking a risk.

If I flip a coin, the logical part of that is to describe the probablities. Now look at this:

3) Is it logical to assume that the coin will balance on its side?
4) Is it safe to assume that the coin will NOT balance on its side?

The answer to 2 is NO. The answer to 4 is YES. What has logic to do with this? Nothing.

Jason210,

"How about transforming the world quickly into an Eden-like place?"

Maybe my earlier suggestion was obscured.  I took it further by suggesting He could unwind the creation until everyone, including Dan Rollins, cries uncle.

However, there are a couple problems.  One you and others have mentioned.  It is unlike G-d to do stunts on command (commands flow the other direction).

Nevertheless, for Dan Rollins to accept the idea that there could be an ultra advanced civilation out there then he needs to accept the idea that its people might have technology and things that seemingly violate our conception of the physical laws of the universe or cause us to see things differently.  The problem with that is that the person from the advanced civilization could, in theory, impress us with virtually any kind of wonder.

Then two weeks later Dan and many others would say it was a trick and wasn't really G-d - it must have been an ultra advanced alien, or something out of Area 51 on a weekend pass.

There is even a biblical precedent for this.  After the 10 plagues in Egypt and the exodus and the drowning of the Eqyptians at the reed (Red) Sea, and after G-d's self revelation at Mount Sinai, it didn't last very long.  The people built the Golden Calf.

What can I say?  IMO, what little logic or reason that could have been applied to this unusual question has aleady been applied. (G-d does not do stunts on command, and an ultra advanced alien is theoretically capable of impressing us beyond our imagination)

>> 2) Is it safe to assume the ship won't hit an iceberg?
>> The answer to 2 is NO.

Funny, my answer her is YES. or at least "safe enough" to offset the potential losses inherent in hiting an iceberg.

And that IS a logical evaluation, a calculated risk. (what happened on the Titanic may well have been a miscalculation, the captain trusting new and untested technology that claimed to make the ship unsinkable)

Waterstreet
I keep wondering why you write God as G-d. Why is that?

I like to look at it like this. Lets imagine in the future, a human robot has been constructed that looks and acts just like a human. Is that robot aware, or is it just a very complex machine, with no "beingness"? Let's imagine the robot does have awareness. How could it prove that? I think this illustrates the subject - object problem. From the subjective point of view of the robot, the awareness is a fact - which is the proof to the robot. From an objective point of view, you can either believe it has awareness, or not believe, or take the rational stance "I don't know".

JakobA
>Funny, my answer her is YES. or at least "safe enough" to offset the potential losses inherent in hiting an iceberg.

That's your judgement. But nothing to do with logic. Incidently that scenario was based on Titanic, which sank after such an incident with the loss of over 1500 lives.

<<<I like to look at it like this. Lets imagine in the future, a human robot has been constructed that looks and acts just like a human. Is that robot aware, or is it just a very complex machine, with no "beingness"? Let's imagine the robot does have awareness. How could it prove that? I think this illustrates the subject - object problem. From the subjective point of view of the robot, the awareness is a fact - which is the proof to the robot. From an objective point of view, you can either believe it has awareness, or not believe, or take the rational stance "I don't know".>>>

People who buy into the mystical would like the mundane to be mystical.  Do you really question that your parents have "awareness"?  [I'm guessing the best word here would be 'sentience']
Could you really imagine that you might discover that you or they didn't have it?

Sure, for superficial conversations a non-sentient being could pass a Turing test, but with such a dynamic convergence of so many different elements of life creating a deep simulation of sentience would be harder than creating sentience.

Consider where in the spectrum of life you'd consider sentience to occur.  If I had to draw a line, I'd tend to think that fish and insects are not sentient but birds and mammals are.  I recall a long, long time ago that we were able to match the neural complexity of a slug via computers.  As meager of a step as that is, we are progressing very slowly up the chain.  It's not magic, it's just ultra-complex.

<<<
Imagine a ship steaming across the Atlantic at night, at full speed, with nr navigation equipment like RADAR etc, just a look out stuck up in the mast who can't see much because it's too dark. It is known that there are icebregs in the area, but it's 1912, and it's common practice for ships to do this because the chances of hitting an iceberg are very low.

1) Is it logical to assume that the ship won't hit an iceberg?
2) Is it safe to assume the ship won't hit an iceberg?
>>>

In this context, if it isn't safe to assume you won't hit an iceberg, it isn't logical.  Even if the probability is as low as 0.00001%, it would be illogical to assume it wouldn't happen.

You jump into your car.  The gas tank says 3/4ths full like you expected it to.  Is it logical to assume you'll be able to drive 20 miles to work?  Maybe your gas line is leaky and the gauge is busted also.  The probability might be 0.00001% but it is a logical assumption because 1,000 people won't die if you are wrong.

Waterstreet:

<<<In my opinion, the notion of G-d as a being from a unique ultra-advanced civilization of One does not conflict with the monotheistic view of Him.  >>>



[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
       

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
       

4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Consider these commandments.  Consider the flooding of the Earth.

If this were the product of Über-ET, the proper feeling towards it would be contempt.

Of course I don't question if my parents have awareness. But I might wonder, like you, which creatures have and which creatures don't have setience, and what would the criterion for drawing that line. As for awareness, I have no reason not to think that all living things possess it; and why stop there? Anywhere where there is a system, such as in a hydrogen molecule, it may exist. Who can say?

Of course there's nothing mystical or magic about it. We are conscious, and behind consciousness, making it all possible, is awareness. It's clear that consciousness is something that has evolved; something that grows in us when born, but awareness seems to defy all attempts to explain it.  If you want to call that mystical fair enough.

Bob
>You jump into your car.  The gas tank says 3/4ths full like you expected it to.  Is it logical to assume you'll be able >to drive 20 miles to work?  Maybe your gas line is leaky and the gauge is busted also.  The probability might be >0.00001% but it is a logical assumption because 1,000 people won't die if you are wrong.

It's not logical to assume.  It doesn't matter if people live or die. I just made that example up above to make a point. Logic is a system of reasoning, and I reacted to your use of the word in this sentence:

>A more logical assumption is that God doesn't exist.

Assumption is a judgement. "More" inplies a slippery scale. Logic because it is used inappropriately. One could say that it's more reasonable to assume, based on some form of reasoning; but not more "logical".

>There isn't any reason to assume otherwise.

I repeat what I said ealier "Whatever you may think or assume, how do explain the presence of anecdotal evidence in every single culture? Cultures that have evolved independantly? God may or may not be the word one would like to use - but something *is* going on.  Call it whatever you want, but ignoring it, or dismissing it, seems to me to be unreasonable."

<<< Assumption is a judgement. "More" inplies a slippery scale. >>>

Like many religious people, you like to pretend that there is no basis for judgment about how rational or logical some things are.  You'd like to pretend that molecules are sentient.  You'd like to pretend that the same thing that caused the universe is specifically interested in you.

Stupid things are stupid, irrational things are irrational, illogical things are illogical.  If you play poker with the same type of mental discipline with which you view life I want to be in the game.  Guess what, if you have a king high straight flush it's FAR MORE RATIONAL to assume you'll win the hand than if you have a pair of eights.  That's the way poker works.  That's the way life works.

Bob
Here we go again I guess. All this is because your incredibly large ego won't admit it when you make a mistake. You'd rather let people think wrong is right, than lose face. You're so easy to break. You can't just accept that you were wrong when you said "it is more logical to assume".  

>Like many religious people, you like to pretend that there is no
>basis for judgment about how rational or logical some things are.

If you look at my paragraph that you took your quote from, posted above,  I said "one could say that it's more *reasonable* to assume, based on some form of reasoning; but not more "logical".

*Logic* however is a specific system of reasoning, and however much you would like it to be logical to say that God does not exist, it is not logical to make this statement.

>You'd like to pretend that molecules are sentient.  
Oh dear. Let's go through this again shall we? I said "As for awareness, I have no reason not to think that all living things possess it; and why stop there? Anywhere where there is a system, such as in a hydrogen molecule, it may exist. Who can say?"

I was simply offering a possibility, and the implication here is clearly that *I don't know* . I am not certain. And yet you appear to be certain, even though you know such a postion is an irrational one. How can you be certain?

We are aware. We do not know where that awareness is situated, nor what it is, and yet we made of atoms, are we not?  For all we know, it might simply be that energy is aware. Can you explain or define awareness? Can you explain or define consciousness? No, and yet you are certain that a hydrogen molecule does not have awareness. You are certain  there is no God. You are certain of things that you really don't know about.  And that's why you keep falling flat on your face.

The atom of course,  does not know anything, nor could it be aware of being aware, since it is is too simple - there is clearly no mechanism that that permits such conceptualisation. However, a realised Buddhist may tell you that he has achieved consciousness of the atomic level, the religious metaphor being the so called "white light". That this level of consciousness is possible implies that awareness must exist at the level, or how could one be conscious of it?

>You'd like to pretend that the same thing that caused the universe is specifically interested in you.

I pretend nothing. Becuase of a special set of circumstances, I have come to know that I am nothing, and no-one is interested in or or knows me. This thing writing here is just a bunch of habits and concepts in a corpse, destined to disappear. Nothing will survive when that happens. Do you get it?

Let's start at the beginning.

Here's a quote from you from another thread:

[[[For example, Bob is aware largely of sensory consciousness, of which the controlling centre is the brain. It is possible for that awareness to shift, and for consciousness to be developed of other systems withing the body.]]]

This alone provides some answers about you:
- Is this person bright? NO
- Does this person employ logic well?  NO
- Does this person think clearly?  NO
- Does this person think that they know thing that they are clueless about: YES
- Will this person understand when they are wrong? NO


<<<All this is because your incredibly large ego won't admit it when you make a mistake. You'd rather let people think wrong is right, than lose face. You're so easy to break. You can't just accept that you were wrong when you said "it is more logical to assume".>>>

Right.  Egotistical in the same way that Michael Jordan is if I was to claim I could beat him at basketball.  And yes, if I did beat him he would lose face because I suck at basketball.


<<<*Logic* however is a specific system of reasoning,>>>

So without belaboring your lack of point, this seems to be at the center of your wrongness.  If this were a math problem, there would be a specific system of reasoning: math.  Since it isn't like that, less formal principles like Occam's Razor apply.

By the way, it would be easy for me to present my logic, but that's because I know which part of my body to use to think.

If we can take a breath here...

Let's look at the "meta-question" implied by the question I posed.  The underlying issue is:

     Is it possible to scientifically prove or disprove that something that
     manifests itself as being God is, in fact, God.

It seems to me that the answer depends on the definition of God and on what things the observer would classify as "acceptable proof."   Because of these variables, there is of course, no single correct answer to this question.

The point of the question is to help us to sharpen our image of what each of us consider to be the Supreme Being.  

  Is He a nebulous *something* that exists in all things?  
  Is He like a person Writ Large?  Does He look and think like us?  Does he
      have failings such as jealousy, anger, etc.  Is he like the Old Testament God?
  Is He an ultra-advance A/I from the future?
  Is He a figment of the collective imagination of billions of people?

I do not pretend to know.  But I think that many religions *do* profess to know all kinds of things about God, having based that knowlege on non-scientific "evidence."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jason210,
>>  keep wondering why you [WaterStreet] write God as G-d. Why is that?

He's explained that elsewhere.  It is a jewish prohibition on discarding the name of God once it has been written down.    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_god#Judaism_2  It doesn't make a lot of sense, but then many facets of all religions don't make any sort of logical sense.

Bob
>>Let's start at the beginning.
Oh that goes back a long way...

Back to that quote from the other thread: "For example, Bob is aware largely of sensory consciousness, of which the controlling centre is the brain. It is possible for that awareness to shift, and for consciousness to be developed of other systems withing the body."

Bob claims that this statement provides some answers about myself. He says from this he is able to determine that determine the following points about me:

> Is this person bright? NO
> Does this person employ logic  well?  NO
> Does this person think clearly?  NO
> Does this person think that they know thing that they are clueless about: YES
> Will this person understand when they are wrong? NO

All because Bob says so, lol!

The reason he says this is that about my quote is that no only does he not understand it; but worse than that, he does not even want to consider the possibility that it might be true. Of course, this has nothing to do with deduction. It just Bob allowing the discussion to degenerate to the level of petty personal insults, as he does from time to time when he gets upset. He gets all emotional and resorts to the tactic of attempting to discredit his "opponent". I've observed this pattern before many times, and a profile of Bob seems to be emerging.

Actually, I had a good laugh when I read his little list, because of the last two points. Let's take this one first:

>Does this person think that they know thing that they are clueless about: YES

In view of the fact that I have repeated said I'm not certain of anything, and Bob is clearly always so certain of everything, I find this statement...illogical. I think everyone can agree with that. Just look back through the threads if you want confirmation. Ok, let's look at the other one:

>Will this person understand when they are wrong? NO

This has to be a joke coming from you Bob. Right? Everyone knows on here that your thinking is one-dimensional, restricted to objective reasoning - which is based on your inability to break away from "sensory consciousness". In all the time I've been here, which is about four years now, I've never seen any evidence of you coming "unstuck". Yes, that word just came to mind and seems highly appropriate. To come "Unstuck". I like that.  You don't understand how consciousness operates, but that's not so important. It's the attitude that is important, and with your present attitude you never will understand anything beyond 1+1=2.  You're too clever.

I said:
<<<All this is because your incredibly large ego won't admit it when you make a mistake. You'd rather let people think wrong is right, than lose face. You're so easy to break. You can't just accept that you were wrong when you said "it is more logical to assume".>>>

Bob's reply:
>Right.

Moving on quickly :-) I then said:

<<<*Logic* however is a specific system of reasoning,>>>

Bob's reply:
>this seems to be at the center of your wrongness.
>If this were a math problem, there would be a specific
>system of reasoning: math.  Since it isn't like that, less
>formal principles like Occam's Razor apply.

Excuse me, but aren't you the one who repeatedly insists on applying scientific method to the search for God? The objective method? Always objectifying.  I think you're well known for that here, especially for getting on poor religious people's backs and telling them how stupid they are in their beliefs. Math is not the only system of reasoning logic is applied to. It is applied to science. It is applied to IT problems. Trouble shooting. Logical decuction is a way of getting to the truth, a way to eliminate the impossible.

But I'll remember this for future discussions. So you are saying that logic does not apply to this question of God, the Universe and everything, but Occam's Razor does? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Ok, so I have ideas. I'm a creative person so I constantly try to resolve things like conflicts of religious ideas, and constantly try to find ways to express things that are difficult to express, and sometimes it comes out sounding a bit weird. Consider my loony writings as just theories, and note that I am always careful to use disclaimer words like "perhaps" and "may be".  Well, we're here to discuss. I could be silent but that would be boring. I must do something while I'm alive.  At least I try. What do you ever give that's positive, here on these forums? All you ever you ever seem to do is dive into the middle of conversations about religion and God dishing out the heavy handed talk, making religious people feel frustrated, angry, helpless, unable to stand up to you, believing you've brow beaten them into submission. In many cases I'm sure you've succeeded.

But I digress. Back to what I was saying about "ideas". It's very difficult to talk about consciousness and awareness, without occasionally interchanging terms. Very easy to the two mix up. Actually, I think the two are the same, in the same way as matter and energy are the same. But this is just words, concepts, air. The one thing I have never lost sight of is *logic*, and how to use it on myself in asking the question "Who or what am I".  The "don't know", and the "not this" are the two invaluable tools.

Sorry Dan :(

<<<  Is it possible to scientifically prove or disprove that something that manifests itself as being God is, in fact, God.>>>

You clarify this but NO, science just output's theories.


<<<It seems to me that the answer depends on the definition of God and on what things the observer would classify as "acceptable proof.">>>

You don't like my answer but your typical human accepts unsupported nonsense as proof.  That's your typical observer.  The scientists won't be the hardest sell.  That will be the people whose religion is shown to be wrong.  It wouldn't be hard to convince humans that God exists.

Dan
Cheers for that for the info on G-d. Fascinating., I wonder why G-d is not also classed as the name for God? Anyway, I thought these EE threads would be preserved forever...

Let's have a look at those questions. I'm going to put my religious hat on for a while, and allow myself to use the word "God". We don't get many Hindu thinkers on here, so I'll take on that role for a while, as I have studied the religion quite well, particularly the Advaita Vedanta philosphy. LIke Buddhism, which claims there is no God, Advaita Vedanta also leads one to the conclusion that ultimately there is no God,  but, in the early stages of spirituality, realised gurus will talk freely about God, so Advaita Vedanta is quite unique in that it bridges the gap between the two concepts theism and atheism.  So, my answers are based on that. Here goes:

>Is He a nebulous *something* that exists in all things?  
ANSWER: YES. Think about consciousness for a second. Consciousness arises in your individual body, but it is focused mostly on the sensory centres, and concepts. How would you describe concepts objectively? What are they? What are they made of? Everything you are and know exists in consciousness, and yet, what are these things in the objective sense? Electricity? Chemicals? What? Can you accept the gerneric term "energy"? The energy in your body, that keeps you alive, has various forms, is all interlinked, and so in a sense is all "one". The Hindu's call this "prana" or "lifeforce". Depending on who they are addressing, I have heard and read of realised gurus refer to this lifeforce as "God". We are conscious only of a small part of it, as I said above. We take that to be our identity. When we are conscious of it as a whole, then it gives a feeling of "enlightenment", of oneness with "God". So nothing magical or mystical, but highly subjective. But I have also heard them refer to consciousness itself has being God, and that conscious and the lifeforce are really one and the same, only we see them as two. Finally, there is awareness, that makes consciousness possible, the background on which all takes place. This also has been referred to as God, or the "Supreme". Not even Buddha was able to transcend this, so in a sense it can be considered to be the ultimate thing one can be conscious of.

It seems to me that "God" doesn't exist as such, but exists as the next level of consciousness. And that can be different. This is one explanation as to why there are many Gods. But that final level, that of awareness aware of itself, has never been transcended, and is considered to be universal, one. It is our identity. It is what you are, only most of us don't see. It's so close that we miss it. Yet it is us. I am That. And no-one, Buddha or anyone, has be able to explain what it is. We do not know what it is, we don't know what we are, and yet we are. One can say that it is timeless, uncaused, without beginning and without end, that which makes all things possible. If you talk about it in an objective sense like this, it's easier  to just refer to it as God, isn't it? But once you objectifiy like that, you create an obstacle to your goal of merging consciousness with it; and from this arises misunderstanding...all this argument from people like Bob and Patrick, which does my head in sometimes.

As this level ultimate level of consciousness is very difficult to reach, so various people who are one with it have tried to explain it, and Jesus was one; Krishna was another. Muhammad too may be. Those dudes were elevated to positions of prominence by chance; they were in the right place at the right time. There have been countless others, and there are many around today. It's no big deal.

I shan't answer the other questions because this says all.

BobSiemens,
>> You don't like my answer
I have nothing against your answer... I think that most thoughtful responses to questions like this are valuable.  The only "resolution" to problems like this are that some people have spent some time thinking about them.

Jason210,
If your assertion is that conciousness might reside somewhere other than the brain, then you are off on some Magical Mystical tangent.  

Is it in my arms and legs?  Obviously not... I'm still concious if Bob cuts them off.  With life support system, I could probably have my head disconnected from my body and stay alive (and remain conscious) for a while.  But if you do even a small bit of damage to my brain (say, with an icepick), I stop being a concious being.  I'm just dead, rotting flesh.

You know it's funny. I was reading recently a transcript of an interview between Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, and a westerner who'd gone to visit him at his ashram. There was an interpreter present. The Maharaj was in is 80s at the time, and dying of cancer, and had just explained to the western vistor something along the lines of what I was talking about above. The visitor couldn't accept what he was saying though he did try. Then interpreter spoke out, saying, "You know, he's been saying the same thing for forty years, and how many do you think have really listened to him? No-one can understand him, and yet it's all so simple".

Magical Mystical Tangent? Hmm! May I remind you that you started this Magical Mystical roundabout!

You have to distinguish between consciousness and awareness. Conscious exists in the mechanism of the brain; awareness, however is what makes consciousness possible. It is you, the observer of consciousness, the witness of it. To use an analogy, you can consider awareness to be the light that shines on consciousness.

What is this awareness, that is fundamentally you?

[[[[Jason210:
Bob
>>Let's start at the beginning.
Oh that goes back a long way...

Back to that quote from the other thread: "For example, Bob is aware]]]]

I'm curious as to what this long post says .... but it's kind on annoying to read.  

Can anyone give me a synopsis?

Bob
The fact that you won't read it, or won't admit to reading it, is basically what it is about. It's about your stubborn ego, your tendency to flame others who are not in agreement with you; and your childish emotional reactions to criticism.

You don't like what it says. Perhaps it's because you know I'm right and you can't deal with it. So you resort to a sarcastic remark. You wish to show your cleverness with every post. For example, even now, with your previous post, you attempt to be clever and witty.

The best thing to do would be for you to read it and write your own sysnopsis.

BobSiemens,
>> Can anyone give me a synopsis?

I'm beginning to think that it is standard mumbo-jumbo.

Jason210,
The distinction you try to make between Conciousness and Awareness remains opaque to me.  If I were to ask about the latter, would you add that

    Cognizance is the laserbeam that shines on Awareness
...and...
    Perception is the gamma ray that illuminates Cognizance
...and so forth?

Whenever somebody says
   "No-one can understand him, and yet it's all so simple."
I'm *much* more likely to believe that the speaker has fallen into the cult of personality of the Yogi.  Your interpretter has probably thought to himself...

    "Hmmm... What he says *sounds profound* and my small mind
     can't encompass it, but he is A Great Man so I will believe him.  I'll
     even pretend that I understand him, but that wht he says is too
     complex for other people to comprehend..."

Here's some more Mumbo Jumbo.

This whole thread is "standard Mumbo Jumbo", standard PR drivel started by you, and for what reason,  I ask myself?

I mean, you did say that your purpose was "to help us to sharpen our image of what each of us consider to be the Supreme Being." I was left wondering who "us" is, but anyway,  I presented you with the Advaita / Buddhist perspective on this. I gave an analogy, and you seem to want to make fun of it; and also express your cyncism regarding the Interpreter and everything else I've talked about. Most likely without having even investigated. Actually there was no cult of personality with this Guru. He lived in slum, was relatively unknown, and died in poverty. I can't think of a more simple, less egotistical person; and he all ever did was expound knowledge. What he says, and what Buddha said is not complicated at all.  It is too *simple* to comprehend, because too many westerners are so attached to conceptual thought and the senses, and think that it must be "understood".

The problem with your question is that you ask for objective proof of something that cannot be known objectively. Fair enough, many do. Twenty years ago so did I. But then you also appear to reject the *idea* that it cannot be known objectively, or perhaps put no value on the subjective. I guess subjective is all "mumbo jumbo".

Go read more on it, or if wish to reject it without doing any investigation, that's your decision. If you wish to express you cynicism, you should direct it towards the Hindu Advaita school, or the Buddhists, not me.

Placing the existance of God on the same plane as
   "I like Pepsi better than Coca-Cola"
(a subjective experience) seems rather to trivialize the question.

It is perfectly possible that God is really a dream brought on by a bit of undigested potato, or the shimmering "water" seen in the distance on the desert, or the euphoric feeling I get when I help an old lady cross the street or snort cocaine.  

It just seems that there should be at least a little bit of *objective reality* to something that is talked about so passionately by so many people.

> If it could, it would be by now

Why? What makes "now" so special? There were plenty of things known yesterday that weren't known the day before. There are things known today that weren't known yesterday. And there will be things known tomorrow that aren't known today. Maybe the answer to the question "Does God Exist" is one of them.

Dan
Now into "how do we define subject" and "subjective". I had a thread about this once. Of course there are the classic defintions, but, in one sense, things you can observe going in within, like dreams, can observe objectified. For example, you can become conscious that you are dreaming while dreaming, and say to yourself, "this is a dream" and in sense, that it's the object of you, the observer of the dream. Of course, it cannot be shared, so in the classical sense it is subjective.

C. G. Jung's contribution to psychology was largely based on this "objectification" of events normally considered subjective. He made a study of himself, and charted the terra incognita of the subconscious.

The real subject is observer of the dreams. It is the fact of awareness. Awareness as the lowest common demoninator of your identity.  It cannot be observed or in any sense objectified. This is it what I am referring to when I say "subjective". There is nothing to observe, because you are *it*.

I used an analogy before of light.

WVB
> If it could, it would be by now
You're right. There is no logical basis for that statement. It's just an assumption (we can't seem to get very far without a few of those, hey?). But in the case of God, there is a mountain of anecdotal evidence, and history is dotted with people like Jesus claiming to know God etc, and yet not one shred of objective evidence. So there has to be an explanation as to why there is all this anecdotal evidence, and why there is idea of "God", and why we seem go round in circles discussing it here. We could say it is all lies, all made up stories, but that is not reasonable. It's reasonable to think that there is soemthing in this, and then at least investigate.  Yes, there is another assumption - that's not all lies.

Unless we want to believe in a magical being that chooses to whom it will reveal itself, who hides from scientists, then the subjective is the only other possible realm to investigate. There is nothing mystical, or magical about it, nor is it trivial.

All I'm saying here - in fact all I ever say about this question, which comes up time and time again in T & R, in various guises,  is to investigate the subject, not the object. That is what is termed in the east as "meditation".

One can find piles of anecdotal evidence on virtually any subject:  Weight loss programs, cancer cures, causes for autism, penis enhancement, get-rich-quick schemes.... and when we hear such stories, we look upon them with skepticism.  An intelligent person wants to have tangible objective proof before believing fantastic claims.

Why should we not have a similar attitude when hearing stories that claim there is a mystical entity that watches over us, fights against evil, hears mental communications...  but can't be seen, heard, touched or sensed directly or by reliable instruments?

Pointing out the sheer quantity of anecdotal evidence would seem like a valid argument... How could so many people be so wrong?  

But I think it is easy to answer that:  The promise that is being made is bigger than *any* other promise... bigger than a cure for baldness,  bigger than a promise of riches, bigger than an improved love life:  It is the promise of
    LIFE AFTER DEATH.  
It is the comfort of letting yourself think that you are not worm food, but part of a larger existence; the hope that your dead loved ones have gone somewhere else and not just vanished like a computer program when the power's shut off.   It is just *too tempting* to want to believe such things.  

Even if we assume that the people who tell such stories are not liars, the temptation is just too great!  People will inevitably try to fit ambiguous data to match the desired pattern; to take unrelated coincidences and weave a fabric that "seems" like a trustworthy reality.   To add one unsubstantiated claim to another and let them reinforce each other rather than rationally assuming that the combined "facts" are even less likely than the individual ones.

Furthermore, there is very little downside in believing in such hokum.  If a religion preached that you could fly by jumping off a cliff, that religion would soon fold for lack of (living, tithe-paying) believers.  But these comforting beliefs won't kill us, and even if quite wrong, they might help us find happiness in day to day life.

> if quite wrong, they might help us find happiness in day to day life

As long as you keep them focused on yourself. But the next step often is: "my neighbour should believe the same". And then all hell breaks loose.

In every culture, since recorded history began, the idea of some kind of God has emerged, and evolved, and in one form or another, stayed with that culture to the present day, which indicates that this is something important to humans, an idea that arises naturally in the conceptual mind.

>Why should we not have a similar attitude when hearing stories that claim there is a mystical entity that watches >over us, fights against evil, hears mental communications...  but can't be seen, heard, touched or sensed directly >or by reliable instruments?

Yes of course, this is all mumbo jumbo. There's a lot of misunderstanding going on, and it's all down to when people objectify. Then churches and other institutions use religion as means to power, so it gets further twisted. That's why I don't bother much with the Bible. It's a pity Jesus himself didn't write anything down, but we have the distance of 50 to 200 years after the his death to deal with; and it's in a symbolical language that is all too easy to misunderstand. So that is why I look at religions that can hardly be called religions - like the advaita and buddhism. Here at least, no-one is claiming that there is God, but a a framework for understanding one's self is provided, and from this whole question God, the Universe ands everything becomes clear.

LIFE AFTER DEATH. Of course, this question is an important one. If we have one purpose in life, it's to survive. On a day to day basis most of us manage this, but what do we do about death? Yes, we might believe the promise of a scripture, and for some that is enough. But neither Advaita nor Buddhists believe in Life after Death. You might hear Buddhists talk about rebirth, but no aspect of the personality survives; not any knowledge of any previous life. Again, this is something that has been misunderstood in Buddhism. Really, you can remove the word "re" from it. All it's really saying is that birth continues.  

It's good to be skeptical on this issue. If you don't beleve, then nothing can make you believe. You need to know.

The only mainstream religions that are not based on beliefs, that offer directly knowledge, is the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, or Buddhism. There are no beliefs involved. They are based on knowledge. Unfortunately, even in these two philosophies, the whole issue is clouded by concepts and terminology that is normally inaccessible to the average westerner. Actually, Buddhsim is a vast religion, with many different schools. There ought to be some that avoid the terminology and operate with only today's language and western concepts. Zen Buddhism is probably one. I remember once, about ten years ago, being impressed by the Kwan Um School of Zen, which is western based school founded by the late Korean Zen Master Seug Sahn. Very refreshing simple and free from any relgious mumbo jumbo.

Even in the Advaita school of Hinduism, the writings of some of the best masters like Sri Sadguru Siddharameshwar Maharaj, and Sri Ranjit Maharaj are hardly free from cultural and religious trappings. One of Siddharameshwar's students, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, however removed all references to Hinduism and cultural and religious trapping when talking with western vistors at his home in 1960s. Many of these talks were recorded in the book "I am That" published at the beginning of the 70s.

Then of course, we have CG Jung, but if you look at him be prepared to spend years of study. He takes you through the unconconscious, and makes you experience it; in contrast with Zen, which is about emptying consciousness of all that is not necessary.

WVB
"A shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases". CG Jung

<<<"A shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases". CG Jung>>>

You're right.  For manufactured things like shoes and gods, one size doesn't fit all.  Like shoes, everyone has their own.  Everyone's god has their own beliefs which, coincidentally, matches that of their believer's.

For example, if you hate gay people, your god is going to also.  If you think being gay just happens to people and so it is OK to be gay, your god will think that also.

On the other hand, natural things like the sky and the mountains fit everyone just fine.

well so many comments..
Maybe I something forth

>> How could God prove that He is God? <<

For any God to prove himself as being is not to do mircales or show his power, But infact it is have Knowledge of everything have an answer for every question we would ever asked Also to have an understanding behind it.  

Good one.  
A possible test:  Put together a group of the 100 smartest scientists and have them simply question the candidate God... Surely the true God could easily answer every question, but no single human would have that breadth or depth of knowledge.  

Of course a being from sufficiently-advanced technology would have instant access to an enormous database and thus might appear to be godlike.  But it's still an intriguing idea.

Dan,

"Surely the true God could easily answer every question,..."

But as was said earlier, the true G-d doesn't perform on command.

By the way, in your unreal scenario, what if G-d gave some answers that the "100 smartest scientists" disagreed with, and they voted that He was not G-d?

Ha!  

What would we expect from some scientists?  Don't forget there is a wide body of argument in which one side claims that the other side cannot recognize that this wondrous universe of ours could only have been created by G-d.  What makes you think that "experts" in science are the best qualified to determine the true G-d?

Wouldn't it be better to get 100 renowned religious scholars to conduct the test?  At least they would have a good sense of what would good criteria when they would see it.  For example, how many modern scientists would know that the true G-d would not want to perform at their command?

Or maybe better than those religious scholars, I'll compromise with you with you by selecting 12 of some of the most noted scientists of the last several hundred years.  My pick for this compromise would be the following 12.  

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. ...Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. ...He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry....he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians,

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian,...Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

The 12 excerpts above are from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Why these 12?  Because they set the foundation for today's scientific enterprise and they had a sensitivity to G-d.

Interestingly, there are articles is week's (10 March 2007) New Scientist and last week's (10 March 2007). New Scientist is the UK equivalent to Scientific American.

In the 10 March, there's an article on the cognitive scientist and polymath, Douglas Hofstader, who is talking about the sense of "I am", so Bob, Dan et al. might want to look at that.

Secondly, there's, review of the book "The Delusion is all Yours" by Alister McGrath. This is one of a series of refutations inspired by Richard Dawkins flawed book "The God Delusion", and these refutations have come from high level philosphers like Mary Midgely; and Pulitzer Prizewinner Marilynne Robinson, professor Terry Eagleton (who's famous quote "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."), biologist H. Allen Orr, and in New Scientist March 3rd Issue, Professor of historical theology from Oxford University Alister McGrath. So you see a mixture highly informed people, including scientists, reject Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" as a work that is quite naive and certainly an attempt at a subject by an author who is out of his depth.

All five critics I've mentioned raise the charge that Dawkins is unqualified, by asking why he should write this book at all.

"The idea science necessarily entails an assault on religion has long been rejected by theologians and by scientists  such as Stephen Jay Gould and Francis Collins".Crucially (take note WVB) both Collins and McGrath reject the "God of Gaps" that exists only in the interstices of the unknown, not yet known to science -  an old argument.

But the main position argued by these opponents, mostly argued by Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne, is that the very success of science "raises a profound and complex question thatcan be seen to point to the existence of a deity: why is the world explicable at all?"

Another point raised regarding Dawkins, and one which is certainly pertinent to some of the amateur philosophers here, who regularly bash religion, is that "Dawkins, if not to believe in God, should at least consider the possibility of the faith-based nature of his own convictions"

"Everywhere we look, there is evidence of something, but it is by no means clear that that something is, in fact, nothing. Rather it seems to be something of startling intelligibility" Just as a side note, in Hinduism they call it presence-awareness - and yet, not one person on here has ever explained awareness.

"Any view that religion is the source of all evil and atheism the origin of none is plainly absurd when confronted with largely atheist bloodletting of the 20th century. The reality is that all forms of belief have good and bad outcomes. "

Articles like this regularly occur in the publication "New Scientist". I could sift through back issues and dig out several. Now, the question is, why does New Scientist publish such articles? It's because Dawkins' book is flawed; but more importantly, it's because Dawkins himself is not beyond criticism and scrutiny. If any members here think that he is, then they would be doing the same thing with him as religious people do with the scripture.

The fact that the idea of God arose in independently evolved cultures throughout history clearly indicates that the God idea is something that arises spontaneously, naturally. I would say it comes into being with conceptual thought. As soon as our ancestors were able to say "I am" and "the world is", God was also, and God was as real is the "I am" and "the world". Each one of these is a concept. In the light of this, to brush God off as lies or nonsense, and settled down into a cosy world where one is identified with concepts and objectivity is aburd. It is to ignore an important part of outselves, our history; it is psychological self-mutilation, or a better word might be repression. Only by understanding the nature of the concepts, and the self, can one go beyond the concept of God.

> Crucially (take note WVB) both Collins and McGrath reject the "God of Gaps" that exists only in the interstices of the unknown, not yet known to science -  an old argument.

Interested as to why you would interject that "Take note WVB" comment there. That serious philosophers have rejected it is a well known fact, and I'm glad that Collins and McGrath are amongst them; I wouldn't be able to take them seriously if they weren't. But in any case, none of this stops other people from bringing it up here. And when they do it still needs pointing out.

I only mentioned it because you often talk about Dawkins and his "Gaps", and I just thought of you at that moment I was writing it....no big deal!!

Dawkins' concept of "Gaps in the mind" is very different from the concept of the "God of the Gaps". "Gaps in the mind" is about people who insist on discrete jumps where none are present.

For example: If you start with a heap of sand, and you continue to drop grains of sand on top of it, one grain at a time, and keep this up for a *very* long time, say, a billion years, and you check again you will find that now you have a *mountain* of sand.

If you start with a heap of sand, and adding one grain of sand at a time you end up with a mountain of sand, there must be a point where you added a grain of sand to a heap and resulted in a mountain.

It sounds intuitively right, and it is utter bunk. The reason is that terms such as "heap" or "mountain" only make a limited amount of sense, and are fuzzy around the edges. There is no such point. And yet the premise is perfectly true. The insistence that there are such discrete transitions is what Dawkins means when he talks about "Gaps in the mind". With the "God of the Gaps" this has nothing to do whatsoever.

>> With the "God of the Gaps" this has nothing to do whatsoever.

Sure it does, every time a creationist say "but a zebra cant become a horse" to illustrate his notion of absolute and sepatate species borders (separated by gaps).

WaterStreet,
As I pointed out earlier (http:#18619584)... whatever you happen to think that God would or would not do when called upon is irrelevant to this discussion.  

As to asking 100 religious scholars to question God (rather than scientists):
The idea is ludicrous.  A religious scholar is likely to know things like "How many documented miracles did Jesus perform?" and "Of the 613 Mitzvot, how many relate to personal hygene?"   Aside from analysis of ancent documents, the specialties of religious scholars revolve around issues of faith -- believing things for which there is no factual basis.  They would ask such riduculous questions as "Why did You create cancer?  Why do You allow so many people who believe in You to live in poverty?" and similar idiocies.  I personally think that God would get a good laugh at the lot of them.  

>> What makes you think that "experts" in science are the best qualified to determine the true G-d?

You have missed the point altogether, even though I was very clear in my writing.  The idea I presented was this:  

One attribute of God would surely be that He has knowlege of all things.  
If so, then He certainly knows such basic things about the universe as the laws of gravity, all about thermodynamics, astrophysics, etc.  He could program in Javascript,  Perl,  Logo, Python, Modula, Eiffel, and maybe even Forth.  He could converse at length on such diverse topics as quantum chromodynamics, the effects of specific mutations in the introns of genes of eukaryotic organisms, bone structure of Neanderthals vs. that of Cro-Magnon, oddities of spoken Vedic Sanskrit, behavior of electrons in Carbon nanotubes at various temperatures, composition of taggants and plasticizer in C4 explosives,  artistry of 3rd Century Chinese porcelain, all about thermoacidophile archaebacteria, and so forth.

It would not suit the purposes of this question to ask God to unveil mysteries, or answer hard philosophical questions (and certainly not to ask  Him religious questions).  The idea is to ask an impossibly large range of scientific questions that have known or partially-known answers.  God would certainly know answers that we have not yet learned, but for Him to say that (and only that) would be disingenuous.  Instead, He might say, for instance: "Quarks are *not* the fundamental subatomic particle as your science now believes.  However, at your current level of understanding, there are six "flavors" of quark...  The exact mass of the "Charm" quark in MeV is... (etc.)... Now as to the nitrocellulose composition of fingernail polish produced by various cosmetic manufacures of the 1950s,...

>One attribute of God would surely be that He has knowlege of all things.  
Why? All these things are just concepts, created by us. Enough to know one thing. WHat you're talking about is not God, but some kind of super knowldege base.

Only if God is some sort of nebulous cosmic essense as you have been arguing.  

Many people think that God can manifest Himself in a form that can communicate with people -- whether it be by writing on stone tables with a burning finger, or through some sort of silent mental telepathy.

The impossibly large "knowledge base" idea is not the best one here, but at least I'm continuing to trying to come up ideas related to the original question.

I missed this from an earlier post:

>> The fact that the idea of God arose in independently evolved cultures...
>>As soon as our ancestors were able to say "I am" and "the world is", God was also... In the light of this, to brush God off as lies or nonsense...is aburd.

An interesting premise.  But...

Most separately-evolved human languages have the exact same (or very similar) word for "Mother" or "Ma Ma" ...  It that coincidence?  Or might one hypothesize that it relates to the very human act of suckling (something common to every human in history).  The same lip action performed while emitting generic "noise" from the vocal chords ends up forming this familiar word.  

Thus, we need not assume that there was any special magic to the otherwise fantastic coincidence that so many entirely-different languages contain a similar word.

I'll bet that concepts such as "Food tastes good" and "Loud noises are scary" are pan-cultural.  We don't need to posit some supernatural cause for that.   Likewise, "There are lights in the night sky... I wonder why they shine." is an example of a concept that could surely develop on its own, given the survival trait of curiosity that is built into our genome.

I think that the next step is also easy to take:  

We all  understand the concept of mother and father...  As an infant, we were utterly dependant on them, and through our developing years, we all (all of humanity, in every culture) looked to them to provide food and shelter, and (this is significant) to provide answers to our questions.  As pattern-matching creatures, we develop this simple model:  

      There are "large beings" to whom I owe my life and who are founts
      of knowledge and compassion.  These beings (parents) rely on other,
      older beings (grandparents, tribal leaders) for help and wisdom.

There comes a time when we need something that our parents cannot provide, and we ask them questions that they cannot answer.  So, we do what we humans are very good at doing:  We *project.*   We assume the existance of an even "larger being" that could know everything and provide infinte comfort.

In summary:
I find it not proof of anything (nor even an unusual coincidence) that so many cultures have developed a concept of "God."   It's just a logical extension of the concept of FAMILY that is built deeply into the human genome.

That's not to say that I disagree entirely that the *Concept of God* exists because God exists... it's just a counter-argument to show that it cannot be used as proof -- unless the definition of "God" is so nebulous as to be useless as a topic of discussion.

-- Dan

>Only if God is some sort of nebulous cosmic essense as you have been arguing.  

Well, you *did* ask that question. I would prefer to say that God is a concept, the same as "I am" is, and leave it at that. The nebulous essence you refer to could be better dewcribed as "energy". I don't really think that helps, though, because it's just another concept.

>Many people think that God can manifest Himself in a form that can communicate with people
We are that manifestation! Only, few know that. Those who do sometimes try to communicate it with those who remain entangled in a conceptual world, in which the ideas of "I", "me" and "mine" form the root; ie, the vast majority of us.

This persistent idea of "I" is nothing more than a focus of awareness. That awareness, in me, is the same awareness as in you, and everybody else. That is what makes consciousness possible. The very thing that made *me* possible is making other things possible all the time. I don't know it's limits, nor it's boundaries. No-one can say what awareness is!

The problem is, it's so close, so simple, so obvious, that people miss it. Nothing mystical about it, it's the most familiar thing there is. If you want to talk about essences, then this is your essence.

Take an anlalogy. Imagine concsiousness being you watching a good film at the cinema. Most of the time we are identified with the film, involved with the action, in what is termed "the suspension of disbelief". Then someone disturbs you with a cough, and for a second you're in this huge, dark space, with everything happening on a screen in the distance...

 

Dan
>Thus, we need not assume that there was any special magic to
Who's talking about any special magic? My point was merely that the idea of "God" (conept of God)  is important, and not something to be dismissed as nonsense, or lies; nor is it something to be ridiculed. That's all I wanted to say really. Personally I don't know where this concept comes from.

I have heard the replacement of parent argument before and it's a good counter argument to the idea of there being a real God behind the concept.

"how could God prove that He is God?"

easy.

all He has to do is create a boulder so big that even He can't move it.

> all He has to do is create a boulder so big that even He can't move it.

How does that make him God? *I* can create objects that are so big that *I* can't move them.

The thought just occurred to me - would it matter whether it's a super-alien or not? To those who are looking for an objective God, so long as something comes up that fulfils their idea of such a God, would it matter?

I think the real frosting-on-the-cake (finishing touch), for my last suggested "proof" would be to also allow Dan's skeptics in that session of 100 of our best to also ask questions about what appear to them as biblical inconsistencies; and let religious scholars participate as well, in order to make sure all questions are addressed and to promote followup questions for clarification.  I suggest that (a) if their exists the G-d, as described in the so called Old Testament, and (b) that the Old Testament (mainly the first five books) expresses the Word of G-d, then (c) only He can satisfactorily and convincingly explain any apparent contradictions, and not an ultra advanced alien being.

My hunch is that God would just say (in re the first five books of the Old Testament)
 
    "What!?!?! You took that metaphorical story as a literal truth?  What
     *on earth* were you *thinking*!?!?!  I *thought* I gave you a brain!
     And, by the way,  that thing with Jacob was just a typo."

But you have elicidated a valid test:  If the "advanced being" (God or otherwise) were to convince athiests (All of them? Most of them?) of the existance of God, then I suppose that He would have succeeded in proving Himself to be He.  But I doubt that resolving apparent contradictions in religious works, such as the Bible, would hold any sway over an athiest.

100 sceptics and 100 scolars ? In that case wouldent the 'proof' be that God was smart enough to go nowhere near that hall ?

But then, so would I  ;-))

This question is kind of like:

"How could you prove that a normal cat could crawl through a normal electrical conduit pipe"

To start with, this begs the question:
      "Why the heck do you think it could?  It seems to violate the rules of physics!"

The answer, obviously, is:
      "Observe it and record it in a credible manner".


The simple answer to both things is that if it was true, we would have seen it.  Sure, you can say that with magic, anything is possible, but why would you?

============================

So the theory is:
A× God is very interested in humans
B× God cares greatly about what humans think
C× God can appear to humans at will
D× God has never made a verifiable appearance

[D] completely contradicts A,B,C.  

If God existed, we would have all the proof anyone would need.  The existence of many religions is simple proof that religion doesn't depend on a god existing.

No, a common reason for not having a proof of X is that X doesn't exist.

Excellent point.  It would have been trivially easy to encode undiscoved scientific principles into ancent writings (e.g., "So sayth the prophet:  A rock with an angel dancing upon it falleth to earth at a rate that increases two-fold with each passing moment..."  or "The light of God travels swiftly -- 130 times the distance between Jerusualum and Rome in a single heartbeat.")

Alas, the detractors have a pat answer:  
God *intentionally* decided that He would not reveal Himself -- thus forcing us to have faith.  If we were 100% certain that God existed, that there is an afterlife with a verifiable heavenly reward for being good and certain specific punishment for being bad (or whatever) then it would hardly be a good test.

Bob,

1. "D× God has never made a verifiable appearance."
Are you forgetting about the 600,000 eye witnesses to G-d's Self-revelation at Mount Sinai?"  That is a central teaching to both Christians and Jews.  The validity of how accurately that revelation has been passed down is accepted as part of their tradition.  I'm sure you disagree that it is a valid belief, but nevertheless, if you're trying to make a logical argument with your Ax,Bx,Cx and Dx premises than you have to accurately present the viewpoints you are attempting to critique.

2. "If God existed, we would have all the proof anyone would need."
Many people think we already have that proof, but obviously you're not one of them.
So, please tell us what are the missing (unstated) premises you are using (or assuming) to form this conclusion of yours. [By the way, Abdu stopped presenting that kind of (missing-premise) argument long ago, and I thought you stopped too.]

3.  "The existence of many religions is simple proof that religion doesn't depend on a god existing."
You've mentioned this notion many times over the last few years.  I never saw the logic of that nor did I ask because I didn't think it made any sense.  So, now that you've mentioned it again, I'll ask like I did above, "please tell us what are the missing (unstated) premises you are using (or assuming) to form this conclusion of yours."


[Heh! I thought I didn't have keep an eye on you anymore. :-))  Actually, I don't think it would surprise you for me to say I think you're a terrific contributor to this TA]

Dan

>Excellent point.
What's so "excellent" about it? It's an old observation, and Bob makes this or a similar point in every thread on P&R. I would imagine it's only excellent because it happens to be what asker wants to hear, and that the whole point of starting this thread is not to enquire, but to express one's belief that God does not exist.

Bob's reasoning is based on the assumption that the concept of God is an objective thing that does not exist. And that assumption is correct. All Bob does is make up examples to show why, according to objectively reason, God does not exist objectively. And he keeps getting lots of credit for it, lol!

Very little progress seems to be made on P&R from two major camps. Those camps are: 1) Those who believe in God, like Divdove, and others, seem to me to stay the same, and seem not to consider other possibilities; and yet they often ask questions that regarding inconsistancies that arise out their belief system, and expect to get an answer within their belief framework, rejecting explanations that do not centre around a personal God. The other camp is: 2) Those who have decided that God does not exist, seem to be unable or inwilling to investigate the matter along any lines other than their present objective search, and seem unaware of the faith-based nature of their own convictions.

If the only rational view one can take on God is an agnostic one, then it seems to me that both campsare being unreasonable in their reluctance to consider other possibilities.

A lot can be learned about "other possibilities" by looking at all relgions, not just one. I get the impression that both camps mentioned above are concerned only with one specific, and either wish to expounds and support that religion; or denounce it.

But religions are very different, and by comparing good ones with bad ones, one can learn.  For example, compare Catholic fundamentalism with Sufism. Catholic fundamentalism, based on emotional stupor, is so poor as a religion that it actually damages people & society. You'd be better of drinking copious amounts of alcohol (oddly, I have yet to meet a catholic priest who does not drink Irish Whisky). Comparing it to Tantra, which focusus on Chakra consciousness, one can see that the purpose of tantra is to invoke a higher state of consciousness than emotional stupor. So the different religions relate to different and higher states of consciousness. At the top of the list, is the Hindu Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism.

Buddha was a Hindu, but the difference between Buddhims and Hinduism is the Hinduism believes in a soul that transmigrates - call it reincarnation and karma. Buddha discovered, through meditation, that there is no soul that transmigrates, that there is no reincarnation.

If one views each religion as a systematic attempt to focus consciousness, and views the exoteric and academic differences between religions as the mere cultural trappings; then both camps have a starting point for further investigation.

As to the question of proof, how can one prove one's state of consciousness? Or rather, how can one prove that one resides in the stateless-state of consciousness, which is the highest, and therefore equivalent to oneness with "God" (if one must use the word God :-) )

This is a much more a meaningful question than to ask how can one "God can prove Himself".

In Buddhism, they have something called "Dharma Combat", in which participants test each other's "enlightenment". The Japanese Zen Ko-an system is part of this, as the Korean Zen Kong-an. The Ko-an system can be compared to the "Gestalt Impasse", which is used in sometimes western psycho-therapy. With the Ko-an system, in Zen, one is asked a question by an enlightened master, and the answer one gives will indicate to the master that you are enlightened, or not. Usually it involves several questions. You notice however, that it is only possible to prove that you are enlightened to one who is already enlightened. In terms of your "God" vocabulary, this is like saying God can only prove to God that God is. So another impasse!

So, back to Buddhist-speak, it is not possible for one who is enlightened to prove that he is enlightened to one who is not enlightened. The reason for this is because although the one who is enlightened knows the true nature of the one who isn't, but the one who isn't doesn't know his own nature and so projects his own idea of himself on to the one who is enlightened, and sees him as himself.

An analogy could be a child who is told by it's parents not to do a certain thing. The child does not yet have the cognitive powers to understand the reason why the parent has told the child not to do this certain thing, but the child will generally accpet this decision with deference. If the child has an attitude problem, it may see the parent as a negative, controlling factor. It may take the parent to be the same as itself, and not recognise the knowledge and wisdom of the parent. "I am the same as him, but he is bad, because he won't let me do this thing". (note that this is just an analogy and not without flaws).

Basically, if you want proof, it's not up to God to prove, but up to you to disprove that your own ideas about what you are, to arrive at what you are by rejecting all that you are not. You must be aware that proof does not exists in science. Only disproof exists. The only truth in science is when a theory is thrown out, because it was disproved. Falsifiability is criterion of demarcation of between what is science and what is not science. Basically, a statement is only scientific if it is concievable to disprove it.

"Is there a God?" is a perfectly valid, simple question. There are three possible answers:

"Yes"
"No"
and
"I don't know"

The last answer is fair and cannot be challenged. The other two can be challenged, and if they are the person making the claim that they know the answer is one or the other must rise to the challenge. No amount of bull crap about Buddha changes that fact.

WVB
The only problem "God" is that there is no single definition. It means different things to different people, and it always will, because it does not exist objectively, and therefore cannot be tested or measured. I never start topics about God.

That's why I always keep insisting that people declare what they mean by "God". If they don't, you can look at their background - e.g. they declare that they're Christian or Muslem or whatnot, and derive from their religion's Dogma what they are *meant* to believe about this "God" Thing.

For example, some insist that "God" is omnipotent. That is something that can be investigated. You check it out, and it doesn't add up. So *that* God doesn't exist, no matter what else the person may believe about the nature of their God.

So we can conclude: Omnipotent Gods do not exist.

What about a "non-omnipotent" one? Again, ask about further properties. E.g. is the proposed non-omnipotent God omniscient? Yes? Cue another logical contradiction.

So we now know:

omnipotent Gods do not exist
omniscient Gods do not exist
ergo
Gods who are both omnipotent and omniscient do not exist

so we only need to take those serious who propose that there is a God who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Anybody else can be dismissed as a fool from the outset. Of course this will wound the pride of many a believer, and the stock response is going to be an accusation of "closed-mindedness". But to hell with that. I don't need to respect religious belief to the point where obvious nonsense must be tolerated.

That may well still leave plenty of religious belief systems that do *not* hinge on such absurdities. And those are perfectly Ok. But yet again, whenever any of those make a claim that is open to intellectual scrutiny, this *must* be done. It is intellectually dishonest and philosophically corrupt to ignore this obligation.

>"Yes", "No" and "I don't know"

This is a classification, but what about the following classification: Believer, Non-believer!
Agnostics are not believers in this classification.

One can try to generalise, and in so doing, it seems that God represents to people some unknown form of higher principle in some non-objective place. Sounds  That would seem to fit as a general description.

Nisargadatta is really one of the only recent teachers worth reading on this subject. His claim was that "there is no such super-entity, no Creator with infinite intellect, no God as such. What is, is the "total acting" (or functioning) of the Ultimate/Absolute Reality along the infinite varying forms in manifestation. This Absolute Reality is identical to The Self."

As to these words, omnipotent, omniscient etc, I'm not even sure what these attributes mean, or where they come from. And I don't need to now what they mean either. Because if one talks about the stateless-state, the  "Parabrahman" in Advaita, of the "Nirvana" in Buddhism etc, then no attributes apply to it. It can only be defined by negation, such as "indefinable", "indescribable" "without purpose" "Uncaused", "Unborn" etc.  If you try to give it attributes, you back to circular conceptual thought again. By circular I mean what Jacques Derrida, referred to as "Différance " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance

>But yet again, whenever any of those make a claim that is open to intellectual scrutiny, this *must* be done.

Understanding intellectually is fine, and for many an essential step; but intellectual understanding leaves one miles away from getting it "experientially" if you will.

Here's my post again, minus errors:

One can try to generalise, and in so doing, it seems that God represents to people some unknown form of higher principle in some non-objective place. That would seem to fit as a general description.

Nisargadatta is really one of the only recent teachers worth reading on this subject. His claim was that "there is no such super-entity, no Creator with infinite intellect, no God as such. What is, is the "total acting" (or functioning) of the Ultimate/Absolute Reality along the infinite varying forms in manifestation. This Absolute Reality is identical to The Self."

As to these words, omnipotent, omniscient etc, I'm not even sure what these attributes mean, or where they come from. And I don't need to know what they mean either. Because if one talks about the stateless-state, the  "Parabrahman" in Advaita, of the "Nirvana" in Buddhism etc, then no attributes apply to it. It can only be defined by negation, such as "indefinable", "indescribable" "without purpose" "Uncaused", "Unborn" etc.  If you try to give it attributes, you back to circular conceptual thought again. By circular I mean what Jacques Derrida, referred to as "Différance " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differance


>But yet again, whenever any of those make a claim that is open to intellectual scrutiny, this *must* be done.

Understanding intellectually is fine, and for many an essential step; but intellectual understanding leaves one miles away from getting it "experientially" if you will.

> His claim was that "there is no such super-entity, no Creator with infinite intellect, no God as such."

So we agree. Except he speaks in waffly mystic-speak, and I speak like a fish wife on a bad day. But that doesn't mean we can't agree.

> Understanding intellectually is fine, and for many an essential step; but intellectual understanding leaves one miles away from getting it "experientially" if you will.

No, intellectual understanding is pretty much spot on when it comes to determining when somebody is talking through their arse.

>So we agree
I take it you mean by "we" that you and him agree. I still maintain I don't know :P

As for waffly-mystic speak, you can pin that label on anyone who talks about non-objectively-verifiable sources, simply because in order to talk about it they have to invent their own vocabulary, as Jung and Freud did in their day. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is dismissed as a standard mumbo-jumbo, and the speaker ridiculed. Sometimes they deserve that ridicule, sometimes not.

I don't agree with your insistance on intellectual understanding. For those who have an intellect, intellectual understanding is obviously going to be very important. It is useful is dismantling, unlearning what you have learned, what you think you know; but totally useless in getting to the truth. The intellect is *NOT* a pre-requiste for knowing your own nature. For those who don't have an intellect, trust in combination with certain systems such Bhakti yoga or Buddhist meditation work just fine.

Zen is amusing, because in some old zen schools masters used to whack their students with a bamboo stick if they gave a wrong answer to a ko-an, lol.

Talking about Zen stories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Zen master Mu-nan had only one successor. His name was Shoju. After Shoju had completed his study of Zen, Mu-nan called him into his room. "I am getting old," he said, "and as far as I know, Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations. I also have added many points according to my understanding. The book is very valuable, and I am giving it to you to represent your successorship."

"If the book is such an important thing, you had better keep it," Shoju replied. "I received your Zen without writing and am satisfied with it as it is."

"I know that," said Mu-nan. "Even so, this work has been carried from master to master for seven generations, so you may keep it as a symbol of having received the teaching. Here."

The two happened to be talking before a brazier. The instant Shoju felt the book in his hands he thrust it into the flaming coals. He had no lust for possessions.

Mu-nan, who never had been angry before, yelled: "What are you doing!"

Shoju shouted back: "What are you saying!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"


Hakuin used to tell his pupils about an old woman who had a teashop, praising her understanding of Zen. The pupils refused to believe what he told them and would go to the teashop to find out for themselves.

Whenever the woman saw them coming she could tell at once whether they had come for tea or to look into her grasp of Zen. In the former case, she would server them graciously. In the latter, she would beckon to the pupils to come behind her screen. The instant they obeyed, she would strike them with a fire-poker.

Nine out of ten of them could not escape her beating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can find loads on the Internet. Entertaining reading: These are from this site:

http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

It would appear the Zen is an inherently violent religion. Send in the marines.

<<<Are you forgetting about the 600,000 eye witnesses to G-d's Self-revelation at Mount Sinai?"  >>>

No, I thought about that as I was writing.  If this was "verifiable" then there wouldn't be any Hindus or Buddhists or Shinto or....

I also don't find the story credible.  As we talked before, the name of the Pharaoh isn't mentioned, no evidence of a massive number of Jews is mentioned in Egyptian history, and, according to the story, this group was so out-of-control that they would start making idols if left alone for a few days.  How could such a group tackle the massive, massive logistical problem of dealing with 600,000 people?

Also, if you look at Joshua (included below), another Bible story has the Sun not moving for a long time.  There were astronomers in many places.  If this event had occurred, it would have been recorded.  This is simple proof that Bible stories purported to be observed by many witnesses aren't necessarily true.




<<<That is a central teaching to both Christians and Jews.>>>

I have a bunch of Catholic teaching and that story was never mentioned.  I think that Christians tend to downplay the "chosen-people" heritage.


<<< The validity of how accurately that revelation has been passed down is accepted as part of their tradition.>>>

Every religious person is sure that their Holy Books are objectively accurate.




<<<2. "If God existed, we would have all the proof anyone would need."
Many people think we already have that proof, but obviously you're not one of them.>>>

Many people are sure we have all the proof that we need that Jesus is God.  (or Brahma, etc).



<<<So, please tell us what are the missing (unstated) premises you are using (or assuming) to form this conclusion of yours. [By the way, Abdu stopped presenting that kind of (missing-premise) argument long ago, and I thought you stopped too.]>>>

If I understand you (I'm not sure I do), I don't have a missing premise.  For me it seems as simple as someone claiming that there is another person living in my house.  I would know if it were true.  Sure, if 'metaphysics' is involved, you can't rule anything out.  But, once again, if there were metaphysical forces, we'd know about them.


<<<3.  "The existence of many religions is simple proof that religion doesn't depend on a god existing."
You've mentioned this notion many times over the last few years.  I never saw the logic of that nor did I ask because I didn't think it made any sense.  So, now that you've mentioned it again, I'll ask like I did above, "please tell us what are the missing (unstated) premises you are using (or assuming) to form this conclusion of yours.">>>

I don't know why this isn't just obvious.  Humans have existed in culturally isolated places.  Each one of those places developed independent religions.  Here in the Americas there were Aztec Gods, Mayan Gods, Inuit Gods, Native American Gods...  

Now that Christianity has 'eaten up' all those less competitive gods, we all agree that those gods were simply invented by humans, right?  [put differently, you and I see eye-to-eye about every god but yours]  The fact that there humans had a religion was completely independent of any existing gods, right?

There are thousands of defunct gods.  We just have a few more to go!   ;-Þ


<<<Actually, I don't think it would surprise you for me to say I think you're a terrific contributor to this TA]>>>

Thank you very much.



-----------------Joshua--------------------
{{{ 10:12  Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.        (10:12-13)
In a divine type of daylight savings time, God makes the sun stand still so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

WvB,
>>No amount of bull crap about Buddha changes that fact.
>> ...he speaks in waffly mystic-speak,...
Excellent point.

Jason210,
Why don't you start a blog or something?  Your ramblings and Zen Koans have no bearing on the topic of this thread.

The fact is simple:

Imagine that there is a level of understanding that cannot be reached rationally. Maybe there actually is. What is the point in writing about it?

In writing about it, you express yourself in human language, and written human language is subject to rational analysis and must be logically coherent. If an understanding cannot be reached rationally, it cannot be expressed in words.

That is why we can safely dismiss Jason210 mystical Eastern Zen bull-crap as nonsense. It looks like meaningless word soup because that is exactly what it is.

<<<God *intentionally* decided that He would not reveal Himself -- thus forcing us to have faith.  If we were 100% certain that God existed, that there is an afterlife with a verifiable heavenly reward for being good and certain specific punishment for being bad (or whatever) then it would hardly be a good test.>>>

Unfortunately for God, His existence must be tailored to conform to things that actually exist.  As a side effect, God is required to be insane.

Here's some examples:

[yours]  I am God and you must worship only me.  It is HUGELY important and if you do what I say, your live forever in paradise.  If you don't I will torture you in Hell forever.  Obviously, it is difficult for humans to act as perfectly as I'd like but I will make allowances.  Here's a plot twist though:  I will only demonstrate I exist by giving you a very old book written by no one in particular.  Too easy?  How about this: I will describe how the universe is created on the first page of that book and get it UTTERLY WRONG.

I am God and I am VERY ANGRY with one of my species.  What will I do?  First I create Angels and they turn against Me.  Next I create humans and they turn against me.  Then I kick them out and they are STILL pissing me off.  Hmmm, what will teach them?  I know!  I will kill nearly all of them!  Naw, not good enough.  How about if I kill off NEARLY EVERY CRITTER ON THE WHOLE PLANET!!  MwuuuHaaaHaa!  Let's see fire... that's good ...  Ooooo I know, drowning!!  That'll teach them!

I am God and I am VERY ANGRY with humans.  I WANT BLOOD!!!  That is the only thing I will accept.  Oh, no, wait!  It must be THE BLOOD OF A GOD.  Oh crap, wait a minute, I am the only God.  Oh no, wait, I'll be three of me!!  Yea!  That's it!  I will sacrifice myself to myself in payment to myself for the defects in the creatures that I created!

I am God and I am VERY ANGRY with humans in that city.  I am going to destroy that city!  It would be the very very coolest thing in the world for you to watch but (HAHA) you can't!  If you do, I will turn you into margarine!  Oh crap, that hasn't been invented yet!  Oh... Salt!  You guys have salt, right?  I'll turn you into salt!

I am God and I am VERY ANGRY with Job!  Naw, just kidding.  He's great.  Let's torture him anyway.

I am God and I am determined to test man.  I will, therefore, give him painful diseases like cancer.  I have no interest in testing bunny rabbits but, what the Hell, I'm going to give them painful diseases like cancer too.

Dan
>Excellent point.
You seem easily impressed...

>Why don't you start a blog or something?  Your ramblings and Zen Koans have no bearing on the topic of this thread.

I would argue that my "ramblings" are an attempt to explain the source from which the idea of God arises; and would therefore say that there is a bearing on your question, because your question presents an idea of a God as some kind of being, with various attributes and special powers. I've said before that your original question is meaningless.  The view expressed by me in these ramblings is just an expounding of eastern ideas on spirituality - but you seem to uninterested in that to the point of sarcasm, preferring the instead to remain with an infantile idea of God, and argue objectively about why it doesn't exist.

Btw, the koans I quoted were deliberately chosen and posted for some light-hearted relief - they were not meant to be taken seriously.

WVB

>Imagine that there is a level of understanding that cannot be reached rationally. Maybe there actually is. What is >the point in writing about it?

But words are all we have. From this source, all words, all religions have come.

>In writing about it, you express yourself in human language, and written human language is subject to rational >analysis and must be logically coherent. If an understanding cannot be reached rationally, it cannot be >expressed in words.

So what are you all talking about then? Same bullcrap, worse even, since Dan started it all with some half-baked ideas about God compared to mystical beings with special powers. Why did he bother bringing up such a topic, if not refute is own idea of God? That to me is nonsense.

>That is why we can safely dismiss Jason210 mystical Eastern Zen bull-crap as nonsense. It looks like >meaningless word soup because that is exactly what it is.

You can safely dismiss this thread. Erm...the words "Reap what you sow" or "GIGO" come to mind.  It's not difficult to see where this thread is going, and when it's closed, it's just waste of server space at EE, as are the majority of threads in the topic area.

Bob
>Here's some examples:
Please spare us. We all know what your idea of God is, and I think we all agree that there is no such God.

>Imagine that there is a level of understanding that cannot be reached rationally

How there is a level of understanding that cannot be reached rationally!! It seems you watch too much fictional movies.

It seems to me the anti-religious camp here at EE have a tendancy to argue against their own idea of God. They seem to have a need to constantly re-state that *their* idea is not feasible, and dismiss any other ideas concerning the origin or nature of God that do not belong to the realms of objective science.

For example, my statement regarding "proof" is dismissed as a "rambling":

Basically, if you want proof....it's up to you to disprove that your own ideas about what you are, to arrive at what you are by rejecting all that you are not. You must be aware that proof does not exists in science. Only disproof exists. The only truth in science is when a theory is thrown out, because it was disproved. Falsifiability is criterion of demarcation of between what is science and what is not science. Basically, a statement is only scientific if it is concievable to disprove it.

The idea behind this is that the stateless-state is the source of ideas about God; and that this state is attainable, and that in attaining this state, you have your "proof".

>Imagine that there is a level of understanding that cannot be reached rationally

I was going to tell him that what he is talking about is not a level of understanding at all, but as there are no words to express it,  I let it pass. I'm not trying to nit-pick WVB.

>  Only disproof exists.

Yes, and with regard to most peoples' ideas about their Gods it exists in spades.

Abdu, just FOAD

Jason210,
OK...
My question "personified" God... I envison an entity that could be questioned and could answer back with demonstrations and/or words that humans could understand.

If your understanding of God is so very different that you can't take that scenario as "given," then perhaps you could dig down to the underlying meaning and find a question that is similar, but applies to what you consider to be God.

For instance,
How can one differentiate the "grokking the true concept of God" from a drug-induced state of euphoria?

When a Zen Master describes a mystical experience involving your idea of God, how do you know he is not simply lying through his teeth?  Or perhaps sufferring stomach upset?  Or trying to impress that hot chick who instructs the Yoga class?

How is anything about a fairy-dust nebulous God-thingy falsifiable?  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Indeed the question was meant to show the difficulty of pinning-down (each of) our ideas of what we think of as God.  

I believe it is important to have a clear idea of the boundary of what is provably real and what is surmise.

Dan

>When a Zen Master describes a mystical experience involving
>your idea of God, how do you know he is not simply lying
>through his teeth?  Or perhaps sufferring stomach upset?
>Or trying to impress that hot chick who instructs the Yoga class?

Phrased like that, it is a valid question, and one that has come up time and time again. In the case of Buddhism, usually there is a lineage, so the Zen master is recognised as such by the previous zen master, and so on all the way back to Buddha. It's been passed on. There are also similar lineages in Hinduism. But I think those days are just about over. The knowledge and practice of meditation is widely and readily available to all, and there are a proportionally greater number of "enlightened" people - although not so many who can teach. By all accounts, most of them are very quiet, and just do normal jobs and get on with life.

So the best answer to your question is the trust-test-taste approach:

Trust depends on many things. What makes you trust someone and what makes you disturst someone? That's a whole new thread, but it's something we do in life all the time, often without even being aware of it.

To test requires meditation, action by you. As Nisargadatta said, "You seem to want instant insight, forgetting that the instant is always preceded by a long preparation. The fruit falls suddenly, but the ripening takes time."

The taste then means the experiential aspect of enlightenment.

What else is possible? There is nothing else.

>> In the case of Buddhism, usually there is a lineage, so the Zen master is recognised as such
>> by the previous zen master, and so on all the way back to Buddha. It's been passed on.
>> There are also similar lineages in Hinduism.

And in Christianity. and it is the basic fallacy in support of aristocracy. We have all too many examples of how such lineages goes bad. from that medieval woman pope who got outed by pregnancy (in direct lineage from Peter) to the rather uncountable examples of degenerate aristocrats.

Not something to count on.

In support of Zen koans I would say that they often speak for themselves, and in doing so lends credence to other Zen koans I do not comprehend. just remember those others are still useless to me as long as I dont understand them.

Jason210,

> [...] so the Zen master is recognised as such by the previous zen master, and so on all the way back [...]

It's the same bizarre argument that any religious nutter uses to support *their* belief: the argument from "great antiquity".

Show me how this is *not* a case of Chinese Whispers (in the USA known as "telephone") and you may have a case to make. Otherwise you're just falling in the same trap as all the rabid Christians, Muslems, Hindus and even Atheists here: you fail to illuminate your own thoughts by the harsh light of self-criticism.

And don't flatter yourself. Your statement about "proof" is *not* dismissed as rambling. You're right about proof. But you didn't just post a statement about proof. You posted a statement about proof embedded in a giant cow pat of verbal diarrhoea.

JakobA
>just remember those others are still useless to me as long as I dont understand them.
The point of the Koan is *NOT* to understand it, but to know it experientially. They are like mileposts on the path to enlightenment.

WVB
You're very quick to jump to your own conclusions, but you should have read what my conclusion was and based youer comment on that, instead of pouncing like a dog. I am reminded of Napoleon's men sitting unable to sit on their bayonets; or a USA guard on the murder mile with his itchy finger on the trigger, ready to mow someone down with friendly fire.

Lineage in Buddhism is the reason why the Dalia Lama is where he is. It's simply about an enlightened master recognising a successor. This is not proof, no, but I was answering Dan's question which was "When a Zen Master describes a mystical experience involving your idea of God, how do you know he is not simply lying through his teeth? " I think I have made it clear in that post, and elsewhere in this thread and other threads, that it is not possible to prove; and that in this case, one must make a judgement, and lineage, or perhaps a better term would be "transmission" was traditionally one of the things to look for in making that judgement.

I said in the same post, regarding lineage, that "I think those days are just about over. The knowledge and practice of meditation is widely and readily available to all, and there are a proportionally greater number of "enlightened" people - although not so many who can teach....so the best answer to your question is the trust-test-taste approach".

That was my conclusion of that particular post. What are your comments about that?

> I am reminded of Napoleon's men

Ever heard of Godwin's law?

No, what's that?

Ok, I checked up Godwin's Law on Google.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. I was refering to a quote, that I think Napoleon said, or at least it has been attributed to him, "Men cannot sit on bayonets", the meaning that if you're geared up to fight, then you will find someone to fight, whether such an action is appropriate or not. How else can your latest post be explained?

Often you attack things with an energy, with an emotional force, that is out of proportion, which suggests there is some unknown motivating factor behind those attacks. What is that? Where do you get your fuel? This is what I react to.

> Where do you get your fuel?

A lot of religious people think of themselves as highly moral, "nice" people. And, don't get me wrong, most of them are.

But those who take their religion too literally are nothing of the sort. And they often don't even realise it. That's why I ride the hyperbole train all the way to the top, as someone once put it. I strip the belief - about an afterlife, or reward in heaven for example - to its bare essentials, and then I hold up the mirror. THIS is what you really believe in.

> THIS is what you really believe in

"you" as in that person, not you, Jason.

>Where do you get your fuel?

Too much cigarettes and coffee.

coffee, yes. I don't smoke. ANYTHING.

Talk about coffee - I'm on my fifth cup today, and about to make another.  I'm surrounded by three computers and a pile of plans, papers and photographs.  I have one computer open just beeping MSN messages and emails; another just rendering and another I'm working on going on.  And this is what I do with my holidays (I have taken two weeks off - how else could find the time to participate in EE bullcrap?)

I must say like that new word "bullcrap". It's like a fart, but without the smell.

I'd not necessarily call such Zen Masters liars.  But since the only "proof" of their assertions is what's in their minds, they could all-too-easily be mistaken.

After highschool, I lived in a sort of "party house" with 4 other guys.  As was common in the 70's, all of us smoked pot... But one guy had a side business of selling "windowpane" LSD.   He'd get 100 tabs of acid, split them up into quarters and sell them to earn rent money.  A quarter tab of windowpane is about the size of this o, but it has an amazing effect on a person's mind.

I only dropped acid a few times (the hallucinations are vivid and the mundane becomes facsincating), but this guy got into the habit of dropping every day, even in the mornings.  He was always having "epiphanies" where he discovered great Deep Truths about the universe.  He'd grin his vacant grin as he experienced these deep insights into everything from ice-cube lifespan to 8-track tape maintenance and say, "You just don't UNDERSTAND!"

He was absolutely certain that he knew something that nobody else knew.  These "truths" were 100% real to him.  But his insights were bogus -- they had no bearing on anything outside the realm of the psychotic delusions he was currently experiencing.

If you eat certain mushrooms or lick the back of a frightened toad,  you can have a deeply religious experience.  If you starve yourself or put yourself into an isolation chamber (similar to what happens in deep meditation) you can also experience psychotic delusions.

But such "insights" are just as bogus as the ones experienced by LSD-dropping buddy.

Exactly. And what is common about them is the utter inability of the sufferer to communicate their nature to any other human being.

Think about it. This is a *human* experiencing something. If that *human* cannot communicate this to *another human*, there is something drastically wrong.

Interesting and brave of you to bring up the subject of drugs, Dan, kind of taboo here at EE. I wonder what Waterstreet will say...

Drugs are chemicals. They affect the chemicals in the brain, and can produce altered states of consciousness. I've smoked Marijuana too, when I was at college, and I noticed at the time that it heightened my sensory consciousness. Alcohol works on the emotions, the endocrine centers, and so on.

The ordinary consciousness, that we experience on a daily basis, is also sustained by chemicals in the brain. The sense of "I am" is produced by a reaction of neurotransmitters.

Whatever the change in consciousness, whether it is produced by drugs or meditation, it is the same principle in chemistry that operates. Only, the effects of drugs are temporary, and the results not within your control. Meditation, on the other hand, allows the control, and results in progressive change.  I think that is the only difference. It is not that content of consciousness that is important. The problem with most of us, and even with your friend who discovered deep truths about the universe :-) is that we are identifying with the content of consciousness, the "shape" of it, so to speak. But the thing that is primary, that does not change, whatever the conscious state is, is the simple presence-awareness, the thread that runs through it all.  The stateless-state. No drugs, or meditation can take you to it; all meditation can do is break the identification you have with the content of consciousness.

When you were a child, just born, you do not have any memory of that time. You don't remember being in the womb, right? The chemicals that produced the state of attention, of focussed awareness centred around the "I am", were not yet established. This happened later, when at about 1 year old or so, you began to "get it", to see that the world existed, and that you were a "thing" in it. But to whom or what did this new consciousness appear? Prior to the conscious state, there was already a primitive awareness, a non-attentive state, even when you were in the womb.  That state, is the stateless-state. You are that. It is uncaused, undifferentiated, indescribeble; a state of pure awareness, in which neither subject nor object exist, in which there is no sense of you - no knowledge of yourself.

I *saw* the movie "What the *bleep* Do We Know?" which features  J.Z. Knight who makes a living by supposedly "channeling" Ramtha -- a person she says has been dead for 35,000 years.  She's obviously wacko, but it's a real pleasure to listen to her speak.  She touts the whole "You are God" bit and somehow makes it sound so... *right*.

I came out of that movie thinking I knew some deeper truth (or something) about the transcendental universe (or something), or *something important* about *something.*  But it was just a sequence of euphonious phrases and meaningless jabber.  The whole bit about changing your reality by using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was just so much quantum flapadoodle.

It would appear that it is relatively easy to string together a bunch of mystical phrases and make people feel good and think they are better off for having heard them.  People are so easily duped.

Hmmm - you sure you didn't smoke some pot before you watched it? That can cause the symptons you describe...

I don't know the movie you describe, or J. Z. Knight, but some people are a mystery to me. One such is Lobsang Rampa - you must have heard of him? You can look him up on wiki.

A good movie I can recommend is Contact, with Jodie Foster.

I don't see what's mystical about what I have described, thought, or even good about it. The fact that we are aware, but that we mistake our identity for some content of consciousness? It's that simple.

The movie "Contact" (and more specifically, Sagan's novel from which it was made) raises a lot of these same questions -- and does it in a very entertaining way.  My earlier post http:#18627694 was in reference to an idea from the book.

One part I specifically liked was how "Occum's Razor" was turned against the protagonist.  She had certain proof (from her viewpoint) of an "impossible" thing having happened, but had no way to prove it using the scientific method.  Sagan, a scientist, was clearly exploring the edges of his own belief systems.

That's a good thing.

>One part I specifically liked was how "Occum's Razor" was turned against the protagonist.
>She had certain proof (from her viewpoint) of an "impossible" thing having happened,
>but had no way to prove it using the scientific method.  

That was the part I liked, and referenced the film. I never read the book - the film was so good!

Saw it at least twice.  If you keep talking about it, I going to see it again.

> One part I specifically liked was how "Occam's Razor" was turned against the protagonist.

In fact that was the crappiest bit of the movie, and with Occam's Razor it had nothing to do either.

The underlying assumption is that scientists will accept nothing that isn't proven. Which is bullshit. I accept that my wife loves me, for example. There are enough signs (i.e. pieces of evidence) supporting that for me to be comfortable in that assumption even though it isn't enough to prove it. The existence of God is a very different proposition. As far as I can tell nobody has ever shown anything remotely like a convincing argument for that proposition, let alone shown anything like "evidence" for it.

Secondly, whether she loved her father is something that she could easily prove. So when the guy asked her that moronic question, all she needed to do was look pensive for a second and then state "there. I've proven it". If he then objected that she hadn't proven it to *him*, she could respond as follows:

"I bloody well didn't prove it to *you* because it is none of *your* business. It is an internal state of mine that I can easily investigate for myself, and when I did it was clear to me that I loved my father. I therefore proved it, just like you asked. On the other hand, your belief in God is NOT your own business, it is mine too. The reason for that is that your belief in God is in fact a belief about ME, because your belief in God incorporates the element that everybody must believe in this thing in order to stand a chance of "salvation" or whatever stupid term you prefer to use. Given that, you *do* have an obligation to provide the level of proof that *I* would deem satisfactory, as opposed to your puerile attempt to catch me out by challenging me on an internal state of mind that only concerns me. Now fuck off and die."

>"I bloody well didn't prove it to *you* because it is none of *your* business."
A case could be argued where it is someone else's business. Suppose a Polish lady is trying to get a green card, to go to marry and live with her American boyfriend in the USA.

But I'm puzzled by your comment. I would also say that if one believes in God, and is happy with that, it need not concern any other;  and yet you usually say that you're happy with that, so long as they don't bother you with it or try to impose their ideas on you. We live in the 2lst century, no-one is forcing religion on anyone. True, some people might try to "sell" their religion to others, in the same way non-religious people try to sell anything else to others, whether it be a theory, a concept, a plan, or a product of some kind. Their are various motivations behind each. I get Jehova's witnesses knocking the door very rarely; and the parish priest even more rarely. But every f**king day my mail box is packed with junk mail, trying to sell me stuff I don't want, as if I don't know what to spend my money. This annoys me far more than an a harmless priest, or born-again christian, or a buddhist whatever. All that environemental waste - from the design and manufacture of the material, to my having to drive it to the recycling dept once a month to get rid of it.

Think of the money spent on advertising, on the TV. Think of the electricity, the products, everything consumed to make the advert. Recently I've been having a problem - admittedly an amusing problem -- with theme music, lyrics and slogans from 1970's and early 80s UK adverts popping up spontaneuously in my consciousness. This is because I was exposed to it during my childhood. So my head is filled with this crap too. It no doubt has occurred on a subliminal level, without my giving any special attention to the source at the time. Religion has caused relatively little damage in comparison.

The spontaniety, clarity and perfect recollection of these songs, of something that was just in the background when I was a child, is what so strange. Why they have been appearing for the past year is mystery to me. Also, the disappear as quickly as they came. Here are a few that have been reverberating this week.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our club,
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our club,
If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join our club,

Jacob's Club, have you ever seen more chocolate on a biscuit?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael likes his breakfast in the morning
He likes the taste of wheat with added bran
Kellogg's 30% bran flakes, are all you need to eat
And it gives you adde wheat as well as bran

And then once more it's fortified with iron.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, what about the weather, is it gonna rain, you can ask without any reply;
But ask about the Bran Flakes that's a different matter, they'll all reply:

They're tasty tasty very very tasty, they're very tasty.

How do you like your eggs done, can you see the milkman, do you know you've got a wasp in your ear,
But ask about the Bran Flakes that's a different matter, and then you'll hear:

They're tasty tasty very very tasty, they're very tasty! [Clap]

Kellogs Bran Flakes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to wake each morning, and really go to town,
Here and there with different smells and really shop around,
Now I use Insignia, shampoo to shower gel,
Deoderant and aftershave, a one all over smell.

It's new Insignia and its all over now!

(sung to Rolling Stones theme)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Cadbury's Fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat.
A finger of Fudge is just enough until it's time to eat.
It's full of Cadbury goodness
But there is more I need.
A finger of Fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard's shop's are filled with all pretty things,
Soft and lovely pretty things, to wear
Hey, there pretty girl, make the world a prettier place,
Come buy your clothes at Richards Shops!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't hide it when it happens to you
You can't hide it, it's gotta shine through
It's new Silvikrin Shampoo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mash get Smash (Sung with Dalek voice)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoops! Scotties.....Whoops! Scotties, Whoops!....Scotties,
Whoops! Scotties.....Whoops! Scotties, Whoops!....Scotties,
Whoops! Scotties.....Whoops! Scotties, Whoops!....Scotties,
etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Mars a day, helps you work, rest and play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[whistling, then]...you can't kid a Bisto kid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, it's Country Life, it's English too,
and it is pure and fresh and creamy
And you'll never put a better bit of butter on you knife
So spead it on your toast in the morning.

(Song to the theme of "The girl I left behind me")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the crumbliest, flakiest chocolate
tastes like chocolate never tasted before’

(sung to a theme by "the Who" - can't remember what called)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toblerone, out on its own,
With triangular almonds from triangular trees,
And triangular honey from triangular bees,
So, oh Mr Confectionary please
Give me Toblerone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got those -- can't-get-enough-of-those-Blue-Riband-blues,
Blue-Riband's-the-chocolate-wafer-biscuit-I-always-choose,
When-my-woman-treats-me-right,
She buys me Blue Riband wafer biscuits, crisp and light,
I've got those -- can't-get-enough-of-those-Bluuuuuuuu....[interupted when she give him one].

Oh! thank you!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This I comes back from when I was about 3 years old.]

Jelly Tots - [some statement],
Candy Tots - [some statement],
And Teddy Tots - all shiny bright,
Tiger tots  - [some statement about liquorice],
Four to choose from on the shelf,
Rowntree's Tots — please yourself!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've rounded the roads from coast to coast,
Yorkie and me rolling on;
'Cause a long day's run is short of fun
Without Yorkie to help me along.
Good, rich and thick, a mik chocolate brick
Each bite a chunky big mouthful,
[forgotten line]
So when I still that big old mill there's plenty more in store for me ...
From that chunky bar of mine.

Rowntree's Yorkie chunky milk chocolate

[Tune. Some country ansd western stuff]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are just the ones that have obvious lyrics, and also that are famous enough that some may be recognised by any UK members in their mid thirties. These are the ones that have pestered me the last week or so. There are more tunes without lyrics, and just slogans like "Tunes!" ( the mentol sweet) and "Ho-ho-ho Green Giant", "Topic, a hazelnut in every bite!"

I wonder how copyright works on these? Since all lyrics reproduced from my subsconscious, I will credit that. As to the copyright owners of this material,  you can F**k off and die. You're lucky I'm not suing you soon for damages.

New entry to consciousness GMT 17:42

P-pick up a Penguin, a lovely big Penguin,
When you pick up a P-P-P-Penguin there's so much more to enjoy!
It's a bigger so delicious chocolaty flavour through and through,
So when you feel a little p-peckish, what's bigger and best for you?
A P-P-P-Penguin!
So pick up a Penguin!
P-p-p-pick up a Penguin!

[Funny tune this one, I think's a Banjo. It plays more on my mind than the lyrics]

Jason,

Show me an ad that says "buy this or die" and you'll have a point.

>Show me an ad that says "buy this or die"

Precisely. Religions do not generally stoop to this level of manipulation. We not bombarded with adverts about the afterlife through every available media channel, 24 hours a day.  Adverts for products are deliberate, unscrupulous attempts to manipulate thought, utilising all the pyschological tricks in the book. Adverts are trying to influence how we live, how we should eat, how we should make our choices. We don't necessarily make those choices, but the info goes in none-the-less, and the slogans stick to our minds like half-sucked Jelly Tots on a wool jumper, like it or not.

There are many religions, and not all promise an afterlife. Take it or leave it. In this sense there are choices too.

"And Four to choose from on the shelf,
 Rowntree's Tots — please yourself!"

The Milky Bar Kid is strong and tough,
And only the best is good enough,
The creamiest milk, the whitest bar,
The goodness that's in Milky Bar!

> There are many religions, and not all promise an afterlife. Take it or leave it. In this sense there are choices too.

Accepted. Some religions do not promise an afterlife. Others promise an afterlife to anybody, whether they're members of that religion or not.

Face it though. Such religions are few and far between. Thankfully there are a lot of *believers* who don't take the dogma of their religion *too* seriously. But the dogma of Christianity and Islam, to name but two, is clear on the matter: Believe or accept eternal damnation. And nobody who claims to believe in a religion like that is going to get away with it. Either they accept that they're bigots, or they must seriously reconsider whether they want to continue to subscribe to such a religion. If they don't do either I will not let them get away with it. They may think they can kid themselves into believing their gutter religions are benign, but I'm going to make damn sure that nobody else will be fooled by their lies.

Although we are way off topic here, the discussion remains interesting.

One issue re WvB's comment:  
As long as a fundamentalist only *says*  "You will go to hell,"  that should have no effect on a non-believer -- much as if a TV ad says, "You will have bad breath" or "You will miss out on a taste sensation," a non-believer need only continue his disbelief to nullify the claim.

I don't consider such *words" to be any sort of attack.  Only direct threats and actions have any effect.  For instance, "If you don't believe, I will take away your property." or "This new law forces schools to teach religion to your children." --- At that level, I agree 100% with WvB.

Incidentally, not all Christian beliefs posit a torturous hell for unbelievers.  One in my experience, the Mormon religion (over 11 million strong -- there are as many Mormons as Jews), believes in three post-death "kingdoms."  The lowest level -- reserved for murderers and unrepentant rapists, etc. -- is said to be so wonderous and beautiful that if you knew what it was like, you would imediately commit suicide to get there.  In other words, the "threat" is more of a carrot than a stick.

I'd like to teach, the World to sing, in perfect harmony....

Dan Rollins
>If you don't believe, I will take away your property."
>or "This new law forces schools to teach religion to
>your children." --- At that level, I agree 100% with WvB.

True. It this has more to do with totalitarian regimes and the enforcement of ideologies, rather than a specific religion problem. The same can be said of communism in the former USSR, National Socialism under Adolf and so on.

Notice that the ads I mentioned were largely aimed at trying to get children to eat sweets.

"So when you feel a little p-peckish, what's bigger and best for you?
  A P-P-P-Penguin!"

What rot. What Lies. How did they...how *do* they get away with it?

This is more harmful than listening to a sermon, or singing hymns in school assembly in the morning, which was also something I did. In fact, I'm glad I didn't miss out on that. I'm glad it was all there, and that I was part of it. I have only fond memories of singing Christmas Carols, attending Harvest Festivals and listening to Canon Hawkins come in once a week and tell us Biblical stories. Even though I later rejected it, I never became an adversary of it. It's like, I grew up, and became mature enough to decide for myself what I did and what I didn't believe.

Society has changed since then. Back then, I lived in a cosy little English town, where there was a milkman every morning, buses had conductors who wore peaked caps; the local council was referred to by my grandma as the "corporation"; policemen were "Bobbies" and Harold Wilson was Prime Minister who used to go around in Wellington boots smoking a pipe. I watched Rupert the Bear on Wednesdays, and Trumpton on Fridays. Going to another country, even like France, was such an exotic experience.

The social and cultural changes since then have been phenomenal. Now we live in post-modern, multi-cultural world, where that kind of cosy existence within one's own culture has long since gone. So religion, culture is a big issue today, but it wasn't then.

Isnt this a matter of 2 lefts trying to make a right. It dont work ;-))

3 lefts, and now yer talking

Spatially I agree. Morally is another story.

If the definition of god we're using is "all-powerful", then god *would* simply be able to prove his authenticity by definition.

That is to say, we can't exactly explain *how* because of our limitations, but by definition, it would *have* to be possible.

"all-powerful" is the same as omnipotent, which leads to logical contradictions. Omnipotent entities, whether God or otherwise, simply cannot exist.

It simply isn't all about Power.. I think God also would need to be a Logical and Rational being..

Or simply absent. That assumption makes a lot of logical problems disappear.

What if is God is nothing, as in no-thing? That would also make a lot of logical probelms disappear.

No-thing. Every-thing. Is there any difference?

God being "nothing" would exclude pretty much every named God as a candidate. It would work for me.

What you're describing is the Spinozan God, the Einsteinian version of same.

idiot

An old man sitting in his garden. Birds eating off his lawn. Birds landing on his head, and on his knee, his shoulders.

One who sits upon a rock in forest. The deer do not flee. They hardly notice him. One of them licks his fingers.

People who rail on about logic but only use it as a means to an end then dump it to the curb when it becomes inconvenient are just as bad as fundamentalist religious crazies.

I'm not trying to prove there is a god here, just the *possibility*. Nor am I trying to define the god's desires or will. Why is that so threatening?

> Why is that so threatening?

Why are you projecting?

Omnipotence leads to logical contradictions. If you want to construct a reasonable argument around omnipotence, then you have to continue to use logic and reason when evaluating the conclusions. According to the rules of logic, when assumptions lead to contradictions, at least one assumption must be wrong. And that is all there is to that.

The problem with logic is that it is of limited scope, and is restricted to mind. There is a beyond the mind you know. But as you so rightly point out WVB, *you* can never go there.

But while you may not be able to actually *deal* with possibilities beyond the scope of your mind, logic would allow that there are *possibilities* beyond the scope of your mind. Saying that things you don't have the ability to understand don't exist seems rather biased in your favor, no? (If it helps, imagine if there were a race of beings with a greater capacity of understanding than us. Would we deny the things they claim to understand just because we can't?)

Again, it isn't a proof, just a *possibility*.

<<<Again, it isn't a proof, just a *possibility*.>>>

Sure.  There's a possibility that I have been followed all my life by a troop of invisible mimes.  Heck, maybe somehow the fact that they are invisible AND mimes "would encompass the ability to *somehow* resolve paradoxes."

Or not.  

Should I live my life as though the troop of invisible mimes exist?  No.  There's plenty enough things that exist or that we have good reason to think exists without dealing with something that it would be illogical to conclude exists.

>Saying that things you don't have the ability to understand don't exist seems rather biased in your favor, no?

Who said that?

BS
If God existed, then God would not be God.

lake59,

I am perfectly happy to accept that there are possibilities. There are many different possibilities.

What logic helps us to do is weed out apparent possibilities that turn out to be faulty, leaving only *real* possibilities.

For example:

There cannot be an omnipotent God. The assumption of omnipotence - whether applied to "God" or anything else for that matter - creates a logical contradiction, and therefore nothing can be omnipotent.

That doesn't exclude the existence of a God. There may be a God. But if there *is* a God, it would not be an omnipotent one.

So if you come and say, "I am a Christian, my God is called Yahweh, and my God is omnipotent" then I can conclude your God does not exist. End of story. Move on.

If you come and say, "I am a <dunno, enter something here>, and I believe in a God who created the Universe and its laws of physics, and who has found a way to manipulate what happens within that Universe in order to produce desired outcomes but *without* causing any occurrence that breaks the laws of physics.", then I cannot prove you wrong logically. I must therefore accept this as a possibility. I still wouldn't *believe* in it, but I cannot dismiss it either.

It has nothing to do with what I can or cannot understand. It is precisely because I *can* understand a concept such as "omnipotence" that I can reject it.

I don't reject what I can't understand.

A misunderstanding, I believe. I think we're arguing two separate things:

WVB,
I'm not arguing that there is or isn't a possibility of a god. The original question was &#8220;how could god prove he was god&#8221;, not &#8220;does god exist?&#8221;

I was only responding to the argument earlier that an omnipotent god *couldn't* prove his existence. All I'm saying is that in theory, since implicit of the definition of omnipotence is the ability to do anything, an omnipotent being *could* prove its existence, we just don't know how. (That is, of course, contingent on your definition of omnipotent. I'm relying on popular definition.)

My second comment was concerning paradoxes, since they were related to this earlier argument. I wouldn&#8217;t necessarily apply it to the discussion of the existence of god. I wasn&#8217;t trying to say you reject god because you don&#8217;t understand it.

" I still wouldn't *believe* in it, but I cannot dismiss it either."
I wouldn't argue that you should or shouldn't believe it. Belief is a personal choice. I'm interested only in logical possibility here.

" It is precisely because I *can* understand a concept such as "omnipotence" that I can reject it."

You don't understand the concept of omnipotence, just as you don't understand the concept of infinity. The word "concept" itself implies lack of knowledge. You *do* understand that there *is* such a concept, and you might be able to argue that you understand what the concept represents, but nobody can actually understand that actual thing. If someone *did* "understand" omnipotence, they would have had to, at very least, experienced it.

BS,
&#8220;Should I live my life as though the troop of invisible mimes exist?  No.&#8221;
Nope, I totally agree with you there. I would just say that it&#8217;s important to a healthy functioning logic to keep in mind every now and then the possibility of invisible mimes could be true (at least until you can prove otherwise).


" It is precisely because I *can* understand a concept such as "omnipotence" that I can reject it."

You don't understand the concept of omnipotence, just as you don't understand the concept of infinity. The word "concept" itself implies lack of knowledge. You *do* understand that there *is* such a concept, and you understand what the concept represents, but nobody can actually understand it. If someone *did* "understand" omnipotence, they would have had to, at very least, experienced it.

Meh, they need editing options for posts. ;p

lake59,

> You don't understand the concept of omnipotence, just as you don't understand the concept of infinity. The word "concept" itself implies lack of knowledge. You *do* understand that there *is* such a concept, and you might be able to argue that you understand what the concept represents, but nobody can actually understand that actual thing. If someone *did* "understand" omnipotence, they would have had to, at very least, experienced it.

That is nonsensical, lake59. Just because an understanding is formalised, for example through mathematics, doesn't mean it's worthless. In actual fact it's better, it cuts through our modes of perception like a knife through butter and allows us to see the beauty of the underlying concept unadulterated.

Cantor found out how to manipulate and handle infinities. We do understand them to an extent.

Even if one accepts that one may not *fully* understand a concept, it may still be sufficient if one knows enough to dismiss the concept as impossible. Omnipotence is a perfect example.

The other point worth noting is that, since omnipotence *is* impossible, and this has been established formally, it is now completely pointless to argue from it as a premise. As the premise is false, logically any conclusion can legitimately follow, and any elaboration on reaching any conclusion is unnecessary fluff.

In other words, you can write a 20-page dissertation on why it follows from the premise that God is omnipotent that my bunny has green ears, but it is equally valid to just go:

False -> P

or

God is omnipotent -> My Bunny has Green Ears

The rest is just filler

Uncertainty is a good thing.

>> Uncertainty is a good thing. <<

Yeap.. why be certain about something.. we might simply get scared..

<<That is nonsensical, lake59. Just because an understanding is formalized, for example through mathematics, doesn't mean it's worthless. In actual fact it's better, it cuts through our modes of perception like a knife through butter and allows us to see the beauty of the underlying concept unadulterated.>>

Cantor found out how to manipulate and handle infinities. We do understand them to an extent.>>

I never said not understanding something makes it worthless. Additionally, I would argue that we don't understand mathematics either (isn't it awfully convenient that 2+2=4?).

As for the impossibility of omnipotence being "proven", please point me in that direction - I'd be glad to give it a look. Still, I think I'll find in the end, nothing can be "proven".

See, if you say something is "proven", it means you have achieved the ultimate truth about it and that it is completely understood. Yet you yourself have just said that omnipotence is only partially understood:
"Even if one accepts that one may not *fully* understand a concept, it may still be sufficient if one knows enough to dismiss the concept as impossible. Omnipotence is a perfect example."

Therefore, nothing about it can be definitively proven.

Also, it might serve you well to look up what "concept" means. A concept is *not* the same as the thing itself.

As an afterthought:

Saying "this guy came up with a really good argument for this and it is therefore proven&#8221; does not, a valid argument, make.

Also, the original question posted here asks "How *could* God prove He is God?". The author is (presumably) not interested in whether god exists. Even if they believed god didn't exist, they still could ask this question, curious as to how a hypothetical god would prove its existence. Saying "God couldn't prove its existence because god is impossible" doesn't, I don't think, answer the question. And it certainly isn't satisfying.

WVB,
I realize also that I neglected to respond to one of your comments:
""Why is that so threatening?""
"Why are you projecting?"

"Omnipotence leads to logical contradictions. If you want to construct a reasonable argument around omnipotence, then you have to continue to use logic and reason when evaluating the conclusions. According to the rules of logic, when assumptions lead to contradictions, at least one assumption must be wrong. And that is all there is to that."

First, my assumption that you were threatened came from your reply to my comment that I was an idiot. As this can only be seen as a personal attack, I concluded that you either didn't like me or didn't like what I was saying. Since you don't know me, I concluded the later.

Secondly, to tackle your argument there, observe my post which you were responding to, and please point out the assumption with relevance to the conclusion:

"You "believe" an omnipotent god cannot exist because you "believe" things can exist only within the realm of your ability to understand something (which, frankly, is a poor logical conclusion). A logical paradox does not mean something *cannot* exist (even logically), it simply means we don't understand how it *could*, which is an important distinction.

Hypothetically, an omnipotent god *could* exist, because the generally accepted definition of omnipotent would encompass the ability to *somehow* resolve paradoxes."

Additionally, the vast majority of sources do not define "paradox" to be a thing of falseness, but rather, a thing that is potentially true, or at worst, something counter to intuition, which can easily be shown to be fallible.

How Could God Prove that He Exists
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

This answer is crazily simple.  
• David Koresh proved to people He was God.
• Emperor Hirohito
• Imam Ali proved to people he was God (and he wasn't eve trying)
• The Pharaohs proved that they were God

If these yahoos can prove to people that they were God, just how trivial would it be for an actual god to do so?

Lol, proved or convinced?

Lets' try to focus this discussion:  We all agree that one of the difficulties here is the definition of God.  "God-space," to coin a term, is really huge, ranging widely:
   "A personal, caring God / Hears and answers prayers"
   "Creator of the universe / Designed and implemented the laws of physics"
   "Creator of the universe / Waved a magic wand"
   "Fatherlike / Guides us through life by providing ancient writings"
   "Omnicient, omnipotent / Too big and complicated for us to understand"
   "Gaia, Earth-mother / Nebulous Cosmic Consciousness"

The range of definitions is too wide, so we end up on sidetracks about what He could or couldn't do, depending upon our own definition.  So here's an attempt to bypass that difficulty.  Try this hypothetical:

      Something -- a space alien,  an asteroid-like blob,  a radio-wave
      entity,  or whatever -- has contacted earth and wants to convince
      us that It created the universe and that we should take Its advise
      on something.

      What fantastic thing would it need to do in order to convince
      YOU personally,  that It was real, and not a hoax?

Dan Rollins
>We all agree that one of the difficulties is here is the definition of God

Such a relief to read that! You missed the latest, though. Werner and I can both agree on something. We can accept that the idea that God is nothing.

So, now what?

BobSiemens,
You comment addressed *whether* God could prove Himself to be God; it is not not about how He would go about doing it.  The former is a given, the latter the question being put forward here.

"Something -- a space alien,  an asteroid-like blob,  a radio-wave
      entity,  or whatever -- has contacted earth and wants to convince
      us that It created the universe and that we should take Its advise
      on something.

      What fantastic thing would it need to do in order to convince
      YOU personally,  that It was real, and not a hoax?"

hm... now that is tricky. Personally, for me, I don't think it could convince me.

Even if It performed a miracle, like travelling faster than light, or changing the digits of pi?

Well, yeah. Even then, it would be like "damn that's crazy" but not godlike.

As is stated in the original question, it could just be really really nifty technology.

I think it would have to be able to affect my understanding of self somehow, but I'm not 100% sure even that would suffice. We can be stubbon creatures sometimes.

lake59,

You're new here in P&R. I'm not. I've been here as WvB for a while, and as caraf_g for a helluvalot longer before that. I've tackled Omnipotence a number of times now. Look 'em up.

The reason I dismissed you with a single word - "idiot" - is that I'm not going to go over the same ground over and over again with every new fool who has stared himself blind on mysticism. Look it up. I need to move on.

>> One thing *God* could do is kill you. Then you'd go to heaven and see Him.  <<

Nah! I will pass on that one.. I want more then a pass in heaven..

-Muj ;-)

"You're new here in P&R. I'm not. I've been here as WvB for a while, and as caraf_g for a helluvalot longer before that. I've tackled Omnipotence a number of times now. Look 'em up.

The reason I dismissed you with a single word - "idiot" - is that I'm not going to go over the same ground over and over again with every new fool who has stared himself blind on mysticism. Look it up. I need to move on."

You know what WVB? A philosopher doesn't tout his history as proof of his rightness. And just because I'm new *here* doesn't mean I'm new to philosophy. Just because you and five other people answer all the questions here doesn't make you right. My arguments are laid out perfectly fine, logically and philosophically. However, philosophy is not about being "right", it's about discussing ideas. I see your unwillingness to tackle my arguments as an *inability* to do so. If not, prove it. I don't care if you've explained it a hundred times before (at very least, you can point to your specific past posts that supposedly do all this explaining &#8211; it takes all of 10 seconds). Here and now, that information is important to the discussion, regardless of whether the people discussing it are new philosophers or old. Being "tired of explaining" yourself is not a valid excuse.

Your assumptions that I have "stared myself blind on mysticism" has no basis in fact, or in any other context. I have no religious belief - I simply prefer to play devil's-advocate and argue against whatever the popular consensus is at the particular time in a argument. This is actually the best way philosophy works, so if you're unwilling to try out new ideas, you're either very closed minded, drunk on arrogance, or pushing an agenda.

You know, I see about 3-4 people answering the questions on these forums. Most of them have been thinking about what they're saying, and are courteous to all ideas even if they disagree with them. A few, however, (like you) have not, and instead, chase off any people with ideas that don't align with theirs. As a result, you have ended up with a unhealthy philosophical community.

I came here for some fun, engaging discussion, but all I've found is people who get upset and pissy when they hit a brick wall in the arguments that they have developed and nursed for so long. As I can recognize this, I know its pointless to argue with you. You will maintain, under any contrary evidence, that your arguments are canon. You need to win, and so to prevent wasting anymore of my time, I concede to you. You are super right and I'm so blind I can't believe I didn't see the truth of your reasoning. I'm such a fool for trying to argue against it.

Carry on everyone, and goodbye.

@ WVB

Give the Guy a break.. Its always good to get the others POV, rather then forcing ones own opinion on someone.

Want some Maltesers?

-Muj ;-)

<<<You comment addressed *whether* God could prove Himself to be God; it is not not about how He would go about doing it.  The former is a given, the latter the question being put forward here.>>>

How did those other guys do it?  They just said it was true and had enough charisma or power to carry it off.

What could an actual god do?  He could say (in a booming voice) "THE MORMONS ARE RIGHT!" to all around the world.  Or He could appear in a vision to everyone.  Or He could appear in a vision to all big religious people.  Or He could lend the Mormon priests the power to do miracles.  Or He could tell the Mormons that he was going to turn the moon red and let the "predict it" and tell the world why they knew.

Humans are STUPID about religion.  In a Chicago underpass recently a water stain looked vaguely "Mary-like" (as if anyone knew what she looked like".  It attracted crowds.  

Lake39

>Carry on everyone, and goodbye.

I've enjoyed your short presence and conrtibutions. Sadly, I've seen newcomers come here and get chased off by people resorting to petty, personal insults. I'm sure most of the time, it's not meant badly - it's just that some are lacking tact. WVB is usually more tactful than that. You should stick around for a while and watch, and you'll soon see who the loud-mouthed headbangers are, and just take them with a pinch of salt.

>In a Chicago underpass recently a water stain looked vaguely "Mary-like"
>(as if anyone knew what she looked like".  It attracted crowds.  

The interesting thing is the desire each human has to witness, experience, something mystical, or wonderful, instead of being trapped in this world of boxes.

<<<The interesting thing is the desire each human has to witness, experience, something mystical, or wonderful, instead of being trapped in this world of boxes.>>>

This natural human desire takes on a bad form.  It's fine to be escapist.  It's fine to actually escape.  It's fine to have an escape fantasy if you know it.  If you are dealing with a fantasy but think it is reality, it causes problems.  Problems like 9/11 or sectarian violence in Iraq.

The idea I mentioned before, that God could kill you, then prove himself, is non-objective; but we can't disprove that there is God, and we can't disprove that he doesn't occasionally kill people to prove himself. In fact there are even sayings about this. "The good die young" etc.

Death is generally interpreted to mean the death of the body, and the end of your existence. But death can also mean other things. There is, in the east, the concept of "The Great Death", which means the death of a sense of personal existence. It means being full up, and not wanting anymore. It means knwoing what you know. It means, in short...nirvana! So, "enlightenment" could be the very proof you're asking for. Now Buddha doesn't talk about God, but I think one can draw a parallel between "Nirvana" and "heaven".

"Thy kingdom *come*"

God is just a concept, remember that. But the concept is a pointer to something beyond concepts, and beyond words. It doesn't really matter at all whether you call it God, the Supreme, the Stateless State, Nirvana, the Absolute...etc. Nor does the religion matter.

Concerning religion, I read a interesting paragraph last night in "The Ulitimate Medicine" by Nisargadatta. He said, speaking about spiritual knowledge:

"People who think themselves to be in a position to air their knowledge forget one basic fact, namely that they go by mere appearances. Someone expounds knowledge and the one who receives it begins to ape the person from whom he has received the knowledge. Thus, whatever the teacher wears, he will wear what the teacher wears; he will wear whatever mannerisms the teacher affects; he will imitate. And the transfer of so-called "knowledge" has only been that of concepts. This is essentially how tradition and traditional forms of worship come into being, all of which have nothing to do with the basic knowledge."

So basically, he's explaining religion, at the same time explaining what is wrong with it. He goes on:

"Whatever you have heard, whatever you have been told, will have no value as far as I am concerned. I want to know whether you accept the fact that the only knowledge that you really have is the knowledge that you are, this consciousness. Other than that, whatever knowledge you think you have is mere hearsay, something acquired, based on that illusory consciousness."

The whole of the book is like that. No weird terms, just reasonable, logical discourse, that you can't argue against.  He explains more about what he means by illusory consciousness in other places.

BS

>This natural human desire takes on a bad form

I think the desire to be involved with or part of something mysterious or wonderful is one of one's better desires. It's a desire for different kind of knowledge - direct knowledge, on a subjective level. For experience of the limitless. I think it is the basic spiritual desire, and it is this important for mental well being.

Though you will deny it Bob, I get the impression that you also have this desire, stonger than a lot of people here. But you fight it. You are deny it and repress it, and by so doing you think you have it under control, but really, it has you under control.

>> The idea I mentioned before, that God could kill you, then prove himself, is non-objective; but we can't disprove that there is God, and we can't disprove that he doesn't occasionally kill people to prove himself. In fact there are even sayings about this. "The good die young" etc. <<

hmm.. interesting point, but isn't that one everyone hold that there is salvation and a light at the end of then tunnel..

How does God kill a person? Lighting bolt?

Still doesn't answer the question.. yes at individual level, if we reach that point and the after life..
But I think, the question is if God actually appeared.. that how i see it from my pov..

-Muj ;-)

>How does God kill a person? Lighting bolt?

Occasionally. Usually more mundane methods. A sudden heart-attack is, I think, one of his favourites.

>> I think, one of his favourites.  <<

Well, yet most religion people would expect that. Do we have to wait that long. Infact that what religious people are waitng for.. Thats why you have suicide bombers.. who want to go and meet God.. and can't wait till they die..

>Thats why you have suicide bombers.. who want to go and meet God.. and can't wait till they die.

I suppose. Very tragic though.

>> I suppose. Very tragic though.  <<

Indeed, Its a waste of Live and Lives..

<<<Well, yet most religion people would expect that. Do we have to wait that long. Infact that what religious people are waitng for.. Thats why you have suicide bombers.. who want to go and meet God.. and can't wait till they die..>>>

First, this is the point I've been making for a while and you keep saying "NO".

But, second, it is worse than you say.  What these people want to do is kill.  They are being told not only does God want them to kill, but that they will be rewarded for killing.

>> First, this is the point I've been making for a while and you keep saying "NO". <<

No you haven't.. Yours simply logic is of an extremist Atheist..
If you can tell me, where I said no it to..

>> But, second, it is worse than you say.  <<
I know it is alot alot worse then what I said, but I am trying to stick to the topic..

>>  What these people want to do is kill.  They are being told not only does God want them to kill, but that they will be rewarded for killing. <<

True.. true..

-Muj ;-(

Like lake59, I take issue with WvB's "idiot" post.  There is no place for that sort of thing in this forum.  

What's more, lake59's comment -- the target of the remark (http:#18898751) -- made a good point.   Today's "paradox" is sometimes tomorrow's "standard reality." The theory of Quantum Mechanics is full of "impossible paradoxes" that are now understood to be a fundamental aspect of the universe.  Furthermore, there were no "mystical" overtones to lake59's post.  You heard what you thought you would hear.

WvB,
You think you have settled the "Omnipotence" issue, but that is only in your own mind.  Paradoxes exist and they do not necessarily rule out anything.

A "perfectly logical" mule will starve to death when placed exactly between two identical stacks of hay -- being unable to decide which one to choose.  There are forms of computer programs that will never halt and it can be shown that no system of logic can ever be complete because of paradoxes that arise regarding self-reference.  But reality *somehow* sorts out such paradoxes.  Mules (somehow) decide to turn left or right and don't starve.  Most computer programs run just fine by avoiding self-referential loops.  Engineers are able to use that flawed (incomplete) system called "Mathematics" to do many things.

It is perfectly possible that some future breakthrough in science or understanding could relegate your "paradox" into an amusing historical footnote.  At one time in history, it was axiomatic that a straight line could never intersect itself.  One could prove it by a series of unassailable logical steps; if it did intersect, that would be a paradox, so it was impossible.  Then somebody pointed out the flaw in the underlying assumption: That the axiom only applies when the line is drawn on a 2-dimensional plane.  Draw it on a 3-D object such as a sphere and one end connects to the other.  Draw it on a Klein Bottle or an n-brane, and it may intersect itself any number of times.  Paradoxes become non-paradoxes all of the time.  People who point that out are NOT idiots.

hmm.. I am going to stick to my idea..
Until God proves himself to us at an Individual level.. there will always be conflict.. such as he is God or not between individuals..

-Muj ;-)

Dan,

Nope. It's not a paradox. Paradoxes are *interesting*. They point at an underlying problem with assumptions. They prompt to investigate further. They hint at a deeper truth.

The "omnipotence" problem is no such thing. It's a straightforward assumption, leading to a straightforward logical *contradiction* (NOT a paradox), and is therefore FALSE. End of!

lake59,

> I simply prefer to play devil's-advocate and argue against whatever the popular consensus is at the particular time in a argument.

That is as may be, and respect for it too, actually. But that doesn't absolve you of the obligation to drop arguments that have been found to be incorrect.

> all I've found is people who get upset and pissy when they hit a brick wall in the arguments that they have developed and nursed for so long. As I can recognize this, I know its pointless to argue with you. You will maintain, under any contrary evidence, that your arguments are canon.

I do urge you to go digging in my posts. You will find, apparently this will be to your surprise, that in the past on many an occasion I have not only admitted that a line of reasoning of mine was incorrect, but I have then, as I should, withdrawn that line of reasoning and adjusted my position. I demand the same of everyone. That is *real* courtesy. Politely ignoring valid points is not.

Jason210,
>> One thing *God* could do is kill you. Then you'd go to heaven and see Him.

Good one.  I hadn't thought of that.  It would certainly be a convincing demonstration.  A variant that would convince most people is less drastic and was posed very early in this thread by divdove: http:#18613390  The underlying premis is that *many* religions (nearly all, AFASIK) posit some form of afterlife -- a belief that persists because it it impossible to disprove and gets really good Nielsen Ratings.

And, you will find, that is the reason I get pissy with people. In many cases I've heard it before, and alas, from the tone of an argument it is often pretty clear what sort of person one is dealing with. You may think I have a short fuse, but this comes from having to deal some excruciating stupidity.

You will also find that I do respect a number of people here, and NOT just those who sing of the same hymn sheet as myself. Mujtaba, for example, is one person I respect. So is wytcom. Both are religious people.

More on the original Q:
Wouldn't a simple prediction of the future be enough (or nearly enough) to prove (or almost prove) godliness?

It would have to be a bit more than knowing tomorrow's Lotto numbers... it would need to be very convincing, such as knowing all of the scores of all of the NFL games or win/place/show of all horseraces for a week or the price of every Wall Street stock at every minute of every day for a week -- some sequence of events that would be quadrillions-to-one or worse odds and encompassing so many elements that it would be impossible to "fix" or effect them all.

One could say that "simple" time travel could do that... maybe a high-tech alien could travel in time...

But if a being can work outside of the normal time stream,  he has at least one of the major features usually associated with godhood -- omniscience (at least in respect to future events).  If he could go back in time, he could effect human history in ways that would make him effectively omnipotent (at least relative to anything in human experience).  

In other words, perhaps any time traveler is God, and could easily prove Himself to be He Who is He.

He could take away everything from you. He could smite your house, kill all your family & friends, make you lose your Job, give you some nasty disease, and make you live in shanty town.

What would you do then? What would you be then, when you have lost everything?

> it would need to be very convincing, such as knowing all of the scores of all of the NFL games or win/place/show of all horseraces for a week or the price of every Wall Street stock at every minute of every day for a week

How would that give you certainty? It could just be that someone has invented time travel. A being's ability to travel in time does not make that being "godly". It *would* of course shatter a few cherished notions. If someone could travel in time and establish future Lotto Numbers, for example, it essentially would prove that the whole of reality is static, and any perception of moving "through" time is illusory. Not great. But none of that would make such a being God.

> He could take away everything from you. He could smite your house [...]

Any nasty piece of sh** could do that given enough power.

>Any nasty piece of sh** could do that given enough power.

Ah but what would be the point, and don't forget the last sentence...

Suddenly it seems that uber-advanced extra-terrestrials are all over the this thread, pretending to be God by fulfilling atheists ideas about the kind of God that does not exist, and making all manner of strange things happen, and failing miserably.

:-)

Jason210,

> fulfilling atheists ideas about the kind of God that does not exist

Sorry, dude. I got *my* ideas about the "kind of God that does not exist" from what actually religious folk have been telling me about the god that *they* believe in. PLEASE don't pin this on us atheists.

Or tell me what kind of God *does* exist. And prove it, while you're at it.

>Or tell me what kind of God *does* exist. And prove it, while you're at it.

You called somebody an "idiot" recently because they said something that you'd explained many times before, and it irritated you that he didn't know. This was unreasonable of you because he was a newcomer to the thread.

Now, if anyway here has the right to call someone an idiot, then I ought to be able to call you one, because unlike lake59, *we* have discussed this topic many times, about what kind of *God* *exists*, and it's been explained that it's not possible to prove it. In fact you agreed on many things said. Yet you keep asking the same questions as if those discussion never took place, or as if you have a very short memory. You keep asking for proof, even though we've been through all this. I will NOT repeat myself again to the same people.

You *prove* to me that when you're dead, nothing is left that is aware. This is your conviction, that you like to publicise and preach about. It's your  belief. Why do you expound this belief? Why do try to persuade others that what you are saying is the "truth". Do you think you are different to a religious person? You're the same. You're preaching, trying to persuade others that your view is correct, when in fact you don't know it's correct.  You're simply building up a WVB philosophy, which is ego-based, and you're starting to preach. You think you know it all, but what you know is in fact ignorance.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding to stupid, arrogant provacative comments like this, with same people with whom I have discussed the same thing countless times before. The reason is that it *is* just a waste of my time and energy arguing with a brick wall. So this will be my last response to such comments.

Angry?

You started to talk about "the kind of God that does not exist". That seems to indicate that you think there is a kind of God that *does*. Please clarify.

And try to steer away from metawaffle.

And what, exactly, is "my view"?

>> Wouldn't a simple prediction of the future be enough (or nearly enough) to prove (or almost prove) godliness? <<

hmm.. not really.. alot of people can predict a few simply things within there domain and they can come out true. That near isn't enough..

The real question is, even if God proved himself to be God? what then?

-Muj ;-)

For example, here is a clear example of you misinterpreting what I said:

> You *prove* to me that when you're dead, nothing is left that is aware.

What makes you think that?

What I did is I started with the *assumption* that there is no supernatural element to reality.

*within* that assumption, I find that, for example, there is no reason to fear death, or dying for that matter.

Add to that that I have never seen a single shred of evidence to show that there *might* be any supernatural elements to reality.

So it makes sense for me to base my life on - read this - the *working hypothesis* that the assumption is true.

The nice thing about it is that the assumption holds no horrors for me. I find that, rather than nihilism, it leads to a full appreciation of the value of one's life. It leads one to celebrate life. Live it to the max. And yes, I think that is great.

And the most wonderful thing is that that is the *worst case scenario*. If I'm wrong, there is more to reality than just physical reality, and there may be an afterlife. Things can only get better. The worst case scenario is wonderful. Imagine what anything *else* may be like.

And I don't for a *moment* consider the possibility that there may be an element of truth about the dire doom-laden nonsense about non-believers that any religion that is so inclined tends to spout off about. It stinks of fraud. It reeks to high heaven. To me, any religion that contains such crap about non-believers can be dismissed as farcical.

The fact that you're getting so angry seems to indicate to me that underneath all the woolly talk that you so clearly like to indulge in there is a hard core of fundamentalism that is only itching to rear its ugly head. Prove me wrong.

I looked into the void
and saw that it was good
I stared into the abyss
and saw beauty within
In life's fragility
I saw strength
In doubt
I saw the seed of truth
In freedom from belief
a life without constraint

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC1OZwZIT_o

>The fact that you're getting so angry seems to indicate to me
>that underneath all the woolly talk that you so clearly like to
>indulge in there is a hard core of fundamentalism that is only
>itching to rear its ugly head. Prove me wrong.

Thanks for pointing out that I appear to you (and therefore probably others here) to be indulging in woolly talk! Didn't realise I came across like that.

You do, occasionally. You also make a lot of sense sometimes.

The question includes the word "prove" but I see no reason to limit the discussion to requirement of having absolute proof.

WvB...
As you are a vocal representative of the athiest religion... let me ask you:  What sort of evidence would it take for you to form a working hypothesis that "perhaps there is a God."   I posit in advance that it need not be 100% proof of anything, just an event that you observe or evidence that you find that would lead you (or others of like mind) to change your thinking from "There is no God" to "Perhaps there is a God" ?

> change your thinking from "There is no God"

If that is what you think my thinking is you've never listened to a word I said

WVB
>If that is what you think my thinking is you've never listened to a word I said

It does confuse people when you say things like "PLEASE don't pin this on us atheists" and two threads later rebuke people who have mistakenly come to think that you believe there is no God.

Sorry if we're finding it difficult to follow your thinking WVB.

Please clarify, Jason210, what do you think I said when I posted "PLEASE don't pin this on us atheists"?

You said "PLEASE don't pin this on us atheists"

Let me clarify:

Religious people have been talking to me about the Gods that they believe in.

There are *some* religious people who believe in (a) God(s) that simply cannot exist. An omnipotent God, for example.

Others believe in (a) God(s) that I can't see any evidence for.

The ideas about God that I'm addressing are not *mine*. I don't even know what the three-letter-combination "God" is supposed to stand for. I can only address what religious folk have been telling me. And different religious folk have different ideas. Some can be dismissed out of hand - "omnipotence" again. Some can't be so easily dismissed, but due to total lack of any evidence, I cannot accept them. Nor can I reject them, of course, but given 99 different ideas I cannot accept, why should I treat one of them as special? 98 of them *must* be nonsensical, and it is quite possible that all 99 are. I'm sorry if that upsets people, but that is how the reasonable cookie crumbles.

And I have explained several times already that non-belief is not the same as disbelief. I'm not doing it again.

Jason210

You're a coward. Simply re-posting what I said is neither smart nor clever. Give us your interpretation of what I said. You decided to take issue with that phrase. Tell me why.

Why should my interpretation be important? It might come out all woolly sounding...

Well, Jason, if you can't communicate why you're taking issue with something I said I certainly see no reason to address your comments.

I could sit here and write a page of "meta-waffle" or "mumbo-jumbo", as I have earlier in this thread, but I have come to realise that it is like another religion, and  I am  just another loony talking bullshit. It's just smoke; the source remains hidden to all except me. Sometimes, to some people, that smoke may make sense, for short while. This too, here is smoke.  Already I am producing meta-waffle. It is not an indulgence.

This explains why there are differences between religions. Someone's waffle, someone else's waffle, and yet someone elses waffle - but somewhere, behind it all, is the light of truth, like the scratched old record playing through the tinny sounding gramophone in Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf, the beauty of the music can still be heard if you tune into that wavelength. But some are focused on the record, the scratches, the objective aspects.

I don't dismiss things because thet don't fit in with an objective world view. Objectivity is just one way of looking. I investigate, absorb, learn.  Also I make no claims to consistency. I am , most certainly, right now an agnostic. This state of not knowing, of not knowing who I am, not knowing if there is God, not knowing anything really, except this beingness, is where I find myself.

That did actually make quite a lot of sense Jason.

I don't disagree with you. But I do think you need to realise that as with everything there are gradations. Some things you can know with pretty much absolute certainty (the earth revolves around the sun, evolution, omnipotent gods, you know the drill). About those things you can arrive at important conclusions by applying logic strictly and consistently.

Other things cannot be approached that way, and you cannot simply apply logic to them. That is what I've tried to address in my latest thread here (don't know whether you noticed it).

The trick is to be able to discriminate when you are in which one of these situations. If you realise what I'm saying in my second paragraph, but then you tar the whole of reality with that same brush, you'll just end up spending your whole life stumbling around in a daze through your fog of incomprehension. And often that is not necessary.

Try asking SunBow if life is messy, unplanned, not controlled by ego.

And ego HATES that !!!

tries to fix it in whatever inventive ways it can think of.

Religion, missionary atheism, politics, sports fan, racism, ... all ways to do that. Science is too.

So we pick a horse and expect the best. Ever noticed that about gamblers? every ludomaniac always expect to win, and there must be some reward in that expectation, else why keep doing it when you so consistently dont win. Heard it described once: "I put down my two bit for a ticket and in the week until the drawing i can feel like a millionaire. enjoy planning how I am going to spend it."

Worth remembering that. Expecting it to work is a reward almost as valuable as it working. it IS. it IS. (Particularly in a situation where none of us will ever really know if it worked or not.)

Stupid ? Yes, no, maybe :-)

Human ? Oh yes, definitely.

Just as it is human to want to bolster your expectation of winning by putting someone elses certainty down. However stupid that is. Even if you do manage to make him miserable, it is hardly going to improve your chances.

regards JakobA

WVB

>Some things you can know with pretty much absolute certainty

The "pretty much" element being the all-important element that is so often overlooked. And be careful how you use that word absolute. It's dangerous. Take one view of reality, which in this case is based on atoms, and apply a "system" to it - in this case basically logic based on set theory, and yout get consistent set theory results about atoms. Well, for starters there's a sub-atomic world to consider, and logic doesn't really work there does it?

>The trick is to be able to discriminate when you are in which one of these situations.
Like work, family life, cutting the grass, taking the dog for a walk? Daily life *is* that situation, but philosphy discussion isn't. Philosophy is for talking about these things, isn't it? Or did you just feel you had to add a "but" there in order to have the final say on my ideas, as if to demonstrate that your philosophy encompasses the whole, and that includes me?

>life stumbling around in a daze through your fog of incomprehension.
Stumbling around? Well, I seem to doing ok materialistically. I'm not going to list my material successes which would be petty and embarassing thing to do. Let's just say I own rather a lot of property and have a job where I pretty much work my own hours and get paid a comfortable salary. I also have a few projects going outside work that bring me a confortable secondary income. In some ways I'm leader in the specialised field I work in. Not bad for stumbler, who doesn't understand anything. Btw, I *do* subscribe to science magazines and oddly enough this week's issue had a feature on topos theory. You should read it.

>your fog of incomprehension.
Fog of incomprehension? Do you think "don't know" is a "fog of incomprehension"? .

>then you tar the whole of reality with that same brush
You think you know reality, and you think I'm "tarring" it with a brush. I don't want to prick your bubble, but reality has been tarred by a brush since ever I can remember, and all I'm doing know is removing that tar, from myself.   I have been sharing some of that here as I go along. What is wrong with that? The tools I'm using to do it with are nothing I have developed myself, and are nothing I am proud of. They have nothing to do with me or my ideas. They with have long been known in the east. I just read about it and tried it. It madse sense to me.

Gautama became Buddha because he saw the suffering of the world. He realised in his youth that everything that is material, from which one derives happiness, is ultimately taken away from us and suffering is the result. Now some people don't worry about these things, in the way Gautama did. They just go through life and take it as it comes, and seem happy enough. If all us well they die suddenly one day and that's that. Good for them. I don't belong to that set. I no longer believe in happiness derived from material things, or from knowledge even. The spell of that stuff is broken for me forever. Do you understand? It's not an indulgence. Once you have become aware of something you can't be unaware of it. Once you have woken from the dream, even it was a nice dream, you can see it was only a dream. I have no choice but to move on.

JakobA
>Human ? Oh yes, definitely

Human is a word that's often used to describe human weaknesses and stupidity. Yes, that's one aspect of being human, but human is also more than that.

>Just as it is human to want to bolster your
>expectation of winning by putting someone elses certainty down.

Yes. The ego is not something that's easy to get rid of. It can be very subtle, slippery thing. You have a good point there, but I don't think in this sense that calling it "human" excuses it anymore than calling anger, hatred, racism, and so excuses those.  

I do believe that....when it comes to beliefs, some people *need* to feed off their beliefs. That should be respected. There's nothing I hate more than to see people being mocked and insulted for what they believe in, and I think those who do mock others should be able to take what they dish out. Do you think they should be spared?

> Do you think "don't know" is a "fog of incomprehension"?

Nope. "Don't know" is an honest, down to earth admission.

Let me see:
>  I'm not going to list my material successes which would be petty and embarassing thing to do.

Oh, why then
> Let's just say I own rather a lot of property and have a job where I pretty much work my own hours and get paid a comfortable salary.

And by the way, how can you be so SURE about that!? Maybe you're just a butterfly dreaming he was a man who almost drowned in the vomit of Krishna.

JacobA,
>>...in the week until the drawing i can feel like a millionaire.

A very nice analogy!
Even if the lottery ticket buyer knows deep down that his odds are millions-to-one, it costs (virtually) nothing to purchase that feeling.

Wvb,
> ...pin this on us atheists
In that sentence, you label yousell quite clearly as an athiest.  Why do you have trouble with others assuming that you are an *actual* athiest?   In your next post, you describe yourself as having the belief-system attributes of an agnostic.   Is it any wonder that there is confusion amongst the posters?  It's time to pick one or the other:  Either
    "There is no God."
--or--
     "I don't know whether or not there is a God."

If you leave open the possibility that there might be a higher power of some sort, then you are an AGNOSTIC, and you should label yourself thusly.

> It's time to pick one or the other:

False dichotomy. I'm not going to respond to logical fallacies.

WVB
>Let me see.... Oh, why then [then "Let's just say I own rather a lot of property and have a job where I pretty much work my own hours and get paid a comfortable salary."

That wasn't a list,  it was a summary, since you seemed to have formed a mental picture of me as some kind non-achiever,  new age hippy type thing.  

>And by the way, how can you be so SURE about that!?
>Maybe you're just a butterfly dreaming he was a man who
>almost drowned in the vomit of Krishna.

I'm dreaming a dream called "waking life". You're dreaming too, only you don't know that.

> That wasn't a list,  it was a summary, since you seemed to have formed a mental picture of me as some kind non-achiever,  new age hippy type thing.

If I gave that impression I must apologise, Jason. No. Don't worry. I didn't think that.

@WVB
Ok. No worries.

By mental fogginess, then, I think you must mean that is how I can come across if I don't speak in objective language?

Jason,

If you take an aeroplane to Dublin, and you get out, you come out of the Terminal building and you go to the car park across the road, you will find that there are a number of ticket machines there, where people can validate their parking tickets. If you take that plane, and you do come out, you *will* see those things.

Although you can philosophise as much as you like about "waking life", I can still state that with certainty. Yes. All of reality might be a dream. But then again, who's dreaming it? In practice, some things are known. And they cannot be disputed. That the earth is a planet revolving around the sun is one such thing. Evolution is another.

One thing nobody can know is, curiously, one's self. If you're sane, to yourself you're a self-referential and internally consistent system. Even if there is more than physical reality, you cannot get around the fact that it is then mathematically impossible to know yourself completely. Your idea of "waking life" may actually be quite accurate in that regard. But what a self-reflecting organism is able to know about itself doesn't change the reality of the physical world. If you try to headbutt a juggernaut off the road you're gonna lose.

Not exactly, Jason. By mental fogginess I mean the inability to distinguish between the necessary uncertainty that must come with introspection, and the fact that it *is* possible to achieve *some* certainty when looking at the external world.

Of course one *very* interesting topic is the beautiful fuzzy area "between" the two, because there is no sharp divide in the universe between "me" and "not me".

>If you take an aeroplane to Dublin,

I understand what you are saying, of course.

Let's take a sleeping dream. A REM dream. Is it real, or not? On one level, it's real, because some activity is happening there. But, you might mistake your dream to be happening in the waking world. In that sense, the dream is false.

Similarly, in waking life, if we walk around in a state of identification with the body, with a sense of individual, personal existence, believing we are *in* a world that exists without us, that is also false.

>But then again, who's dreaming it?
*shruggs*

>That the earth is a planet revolving around the sun is one such thing.
If there was no mind there to observe it, what would be there to descriminate the earth from the rest of universe? How would time exist? By what authority is the boundary of what we call earth determined? What would the word earth even mean? There's nothing without this consciousness.

>the fact that it *is* possible to achieve *some* certainty when looking at the external world.
If you want objective knowledge then you can build up that, but it's all relative to mind. And even in that sense there are no certainties, only probabilities.  This is *important* to understand. There is no absolute reality, no "out there".

Oh there is. One.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x27IBegq-dk

Jason,

What does "mind" have to do with anything? If there were no mind there to observe it, there would still be a rock revolving around a star. Of course there would be nothing there to point at the star and say "that's a star" or point at the Earth and say "that's a planet". But they would still exist. If a mind were to somehow "appear" in the Universe at that point in time, it *would* observe those things. Those things do exist independently of mind.

If a tree falls in the woods, would it make a sound? It depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as "that which somebody hears" then, no. It won't. If you define sound as "vibrations in the air", then yes. It will. And the latter is objective reality.

There *is* an absolute reality. If there weren't, no two minds could ever agree on anything. And science has proven that they can.

MindWVB
>There *is* an absolute reality. If there weren't, no two minds could ever agree
>on anything. And science has proven
>that they can.

Is one mind different from another? Two minds are essentially the same, so it's not surprising there is agreement! The universe is not totally chaos. There is order, patterns, but those patterns cannot be defined unless there is a stratum to define them against. That stratum will determine those patterns.

So, taking mind as a stratum the universe appears. Mind is complex, and mind is also part of the universe.  Who is to say where mind starts, and where mind ends? Where do senses start, and where do they end? What kind of abstraction processes take place within mind?

We know that any object is mostly space. Atoms are mostly nothingness. Thus, a red ball is mostly nothingness, but we see it as a solid object because mind has evolved to abstract something out of nothing.

Realted discoveries have been made in science a long time ago. Quantum theory, Bells theory and so on.

No, Jason,

That's a nonsense. Yes of course, according to current quantum theories it can be argued that everything is connected to everything at a fundamental level. And that therefore includes you and your brain, and therefore your mind, mine, and everybody else's, and all of the universe.

But that doesn't mean mind is the *originator* of the universe. Mind *emerges* in the universe. And that means the universe is real, and constitutes an objective reality, and that includes our minds in it.

Yes, you are right. A red ball is a construct of the mind. And yes, it is mostly empty space. The "solid red ball" that we perceive is a construct of our mind. But what you're forgetting is that the "mostly empty space" is the *reality* underlying it. And that reality is the fundamental basis for all existence. That is why you and I can agree that Experts Exchange is real. We can both see it.

Related discoveries? No. Sorry. Some people have been scratching their heads about what certain findings in Quantum Theory actually *mean*, and some have gotten a bit carried away philosophising about it. But nobody disputes the existence of an objective reality. Even if us, minds, subjectively interpret it very differently from one another sometimes.

> The universe is not totally chaos. There is order, patterns, but those patterns cannot be defined unless there is a stratum to define them against. That stratum will determine those patterns.

Precisely. And "The Universe" is the ultimate reality that gives rise to you as well as your mind. But *it* is the originator. Not your mind.

This is an interesting discussion. I'm sorry it's off topic Dan. But may be not so off topic...

What I said is not nonsense - and you even agree to what I said. You only disagree with the idea that the universe is in consciousness, and not vice a versa. So I ask you, what do you mean by this *universe* that contains consciousness? Can you define it? Can it be known? Can it be said to have an existence at all? Upon what stratum is it defined? Does it contain *things* and if so, by what datum, or reference, or those things defined?

Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind. Mind is relative. Relativity allows the measurement of time and space, and all the things. This objectivity is therefore only possible in consciousness. It exists in consciousness.

Where does objectivity fit in? Relativity, yes. But objectivity? It does not matter if there are two minds, or three minds, or 10 billion minds. They are all the same. So there might as well be only one. Objectivity exists only for those minds.

Back to the absolute. If there is an absolute, independant of mind, then it must be undifferentiated, indefinable, inexpressable, and if it has the role of *originator* as you suggest, then it would be likely candidate for God, would it not?

So Dan, sorry for the mumbo jumbo. But somehow, WVB has filled in the missing link of what turned out to be a very elegant concept.

I'm going to go away for a while and have a good think about this.

EDITED version:

This is an interesting discussion. I'm sorry it's off topic Dan. But may be not so off topic...

What I said is not nonsense - and you even agree to what I said. You only disagree with the idea that the universe is in consciousness, and not vice a versa. So I ask you, what do you mean by this *universe* that contains consciousness? Can you define it? Can it be known? Can it be said to have an existence at all? Upon what stratum is it defined? Does it contain *things* and if so, by what datum, or reference, or those things defined?

Consciousness is awareness modulated by mind. Mind is relative. Relativity allows the measurement of time and space, and all the things. This relativity is therefore only possible in consciousness. It exists in consciousness.

Where does objectivity fit in? Relativity, yes. But objectivity? It does not matter if there are two minds, or three minds, or 10 billion minds. They are all the same. So there might as well be only one. Objectivity exists only for those minds.

Back to the absolute. If there is an absolute, independant of mind, then it must be undifferentiated, indefinable, inexpressable, and if it has the role of *originator* as you suggest, then it would be likely candidate for God, would it not?

So Dan, sorry for the mumbo jumbo. But somehow, WVB has filled in the missing link of what turned out to be a very elegant concept.

I'm going to go away for a while and have a good think about this.

So....

Objectivity would be the absolute looked at from the point of view of mind? Now the puzzle remains of awareness, and who am I.

Just some ideas being thrown in here. I'm taken by this idea of "absolute".

What if the absolute is Self? What if the absolute (as in the undifferentiated *universe*) is awareness itself? That would answer a few loose ends. In fact it would make a mega-concept.  Becaue *That* which makes consciousness possible, which is, and which is the simplest definition one can have of oneself - that would then also be the absolute, the undifferentiated universe!!

OMG. Does anyone know what I'm on about?

So....

Just let me look at these statements again, and attach a tidbit of explanation. And also leave God out.

1)  "The Universe is in consciousness". This would be the absolute as seen from the point of view of the mind, in relative
      terms through the conditioning mind. This is all we can in fact know. It gives us what you call objectivity. Normal,
     everyday existence, only, not many realise that what they are experiencing is in fact consciousness, not the universe.

2)  "Consciousness is in the Universe". This would be consciousness seen from the point of view of the absolute.
      If the absolute is undifferentiated awareness, then this state would be the Nirvana state, the stateless state,
     which observes the coming and going of consciousness.

This would mean that objectivity is the absolute observing itself through consciousness, and, incidently, mistakenly identfiying *itself* with the object of consciousness.

However, there is still something that does not jibe here, I can't put my finger on it, but I'm not too worried about that  because after all this too is just a concept; but at least it deals with the problem of objectivity. At least for me it does.

I'm going to bounce these ideas of a few Buddhists and see what they think. They'll probably tell me that I'd be better of lay down and not think :(

Goodnight

> They'll probably tell me that I'd be better of lay down and not think :(

If they tell you that, DO NOT LISTEN

>If they tell you that, DO NOT LISTEN

Actually no-one did. There were the inevitable enigmatic zen-like responses, but also one has to remember that many who proclaim to be enlightened are just bullcrapping. But there are one or two there who are pretty good and their responses were generally positive and I was pleased about that. Here they are:

"This is all very good but in the end it is just more conjecture. As
 has been pointed out: the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU
EXIST."

"You are the content of consciousness.....searching within the content
of consciousness for consciousness itself."

"You are combating concepts about things with concepts about things.
See that.....and watch what happens."

"all disolve in THAT which IS an IS NOT and which has No NAME."

> the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU
EXIST

How can you even be sure about that?

> You are the content of consciousness

What is meant by "You" in that sentence?

> You are combating concepts about things with concepts about things.
See that.....and watch what happens.

Happens? What do they mean by "happens"? Is this a change of state? A state of what? And what is meant by change? Doesn't change imply time?

> all disolve in THAT which IS an IS NOT and which has No NAME

I think we are running the risk here of doing a Robert M. Pirsig on it. He started thinking about Quality, and he ended up equating Quality to the Tao.

I don't think anybody truly enlightened would go about advertising the fact.

@ WVB

>> How can you even be sure about that? <<
Just Pinch yourself.. ;-)

>> "You are the content of consciousness.....searching within the content
of consciousness for consciousness itself." <<

hmm.. that seems like a more Spiritual thought.

>> "You are combating concepts about things with concepts about things.
See that.....and watch what happens." <<

Thats seems like inter-conflict.. from my pov..

>> "all disolve in THAT which IS an IS NOT and which has No NAME." <<
Just seems like a lot of fancy words, with no meaning and no name ;-D

-Muj ;-)

> the only thing you really KNOW is that YOU EXIST

Without being too pedantic about the word "YOU", if you doubt existence then - what is this? It would be ridiculous to doubt it, and this one was just driving home the fact that everything is in consciousness.

>What is meant by "You" in that sentence?

If we put that into the first person *I*, this is not the ego *I*. This is the consciousness, which has a centre, and therefore has that touch of I-AM-NESS.

>Happens? What do they mean by "happens"? Is this a change of state?
>A state of what? And what is meant by change? Doesn't change imply time?

All this is taking place in the mind. What he is referring to is the state of witnessing, which is using consciousness to observe consciousness. So, yes there is time involved in this process, and not this is not enlightenment but a process of in the disidentification with the contents of consciousness.

>  think we are running the risk here of doing a Robert M. Pirsig on it. He started thinking about Quality, and he ended up equating Quality to the Tao.

Don't know about him. Unfortunately all there is, are words and concepts. That is all we have to communicate this stuff.
The statement "all disolve in THAT which IS an IS NOT and which has No NAME" is simple enough, and this was actually spoken by someone who is quite eminent, and I would say, certainly in the early stages of realisation.

>I don't think anybody truly enlightened would go about advertising the fact.
Many retain the desire to impart knowledge. This can fade, in old age, disappear too. Then the personality is truly annihilated.

All I did was ask some Buddhists who normally rip to shreds any conjecture - and they didn't. I'm not through with it yet. But, whatever happens, the only way is prove it to for ourselves. Ironically, it comes back to Dan's question. How can God prove he is God? It's just to realise that we are God. Of course, the word God is absolutely not required.

All events are, at an underlying level, only the sum of the probabilities that they will occur.  Shrodinger's cat remains both dead and alive until the observer opens the box.

So how does it happen that two hydrogen atoms in some distant star will fuse and spit out a bunch of photons ... rather than simply remain in the state where they might or might not fuse?  And what if the photons go off in a direction other than that of the earth (where a real observer can pervceive them)?

Perhaps there exists a sort of "Universal Observer" who causes all of these probability waves to collapse into actual events.  A light beam does exist, even if it is pointing away from earth (or more interestingly, toward earth at a time before there were humans here to observe it).  Who, or What caused it to exist by observing it?

Wvb,
In your dismissive comment to my http:#a18949210 post, you called that a "false dichotomy."  The definition of "atheist" is very clear, involving a single, very simple, true/false option.   If you are not an athiest, you are something else.  If you are not an atheist, you should avoid confusing people by saying that you are one.

Dan

>So how does it happen that two hydrogen atoms in some distant
>star will fuse and spit out a bunch of photons ... rather than simply
>remain in the state where they might or might not fuse?  And what
>if the photons go off in a direction other than that of the earth
>(where a real observer can pervceive them)?

I know what you're getting at. It's a puzzle isn't it? I would say that Photons are just a concept used to explain something. They don't really exist. So, those that go off in another direction - for me I think it's meaningless to speak of them. Most likely the *photon* will strike something, and the energy will transform and transmute in endless reverberations, and probably will have some effect on the observable universe, even if it's not obvious. If it doesn't then it's like talking about what's inside a black hole, or what's outside the universe.

Observing is a funny word in this context. What happens to a photon that is observed? It has struck something, and been changed forever by that impact. It may make an electron jump, and that is the observation.

> Just Pinch yourself.. ;-)

The problem about that, Mujtaba, is that not only does it prove that *you* exist, but also physical reality. Well, it's a problem to Jason, apparently. I'd be happy with it.

Jason,

I'm reading your comments, and this is what I see. You're talking about "you" and "I", clearly distinguishing between the two. You're using words like "in", "center", "touch", clearly based on the reality of the physical world. And yet, using that same language, you're trying to extract or abstract yourself from it, not only yourself, but me too. It isn't going to work.

Dan,

I don't give a flying f**k what dictionaries define "atheist" to be as. Go to YouTube and check out Atheist Scum United, and see what they believe about the existence of God. Only an idiot would categorically deny any possibility of the existence of anything remotely "god"-like. What would even be *meant* by such a term!?

But name a God. Any God. Yahweh? Doesn't exist. Allah? Nope. Vishnu? Sorry, no. The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Not a chance. The Tooth Fairy? Nope.

How much more "atheist" would you like it?

Because you've posted a good comment in the other thread, Dan, I'll elaborate:

According to WikiPedia:
"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities."

See the two possibilities there? Obviously I certainly support the first one, and I'm very close to the second.

Anothe definition if you google for define:atheist

"Atheists claim there is no proof for God[s]"

"A person for whom the idea of god is senseless."

"is one who does not believe that there is a god."

You will, of course, find alternative definitions such as "one who actively believes that there is no God". That definition is, in fact, incorrect, although such people would obviously be included in the umbrella term of "atheist".

Some people use terms like "strong atheism" and "weak atheism". I think that's being silly.

Agnosticism is different from the above forms of atheism in that agnostics think that knowledge about the existence of god is unattainable. They think we'll never know. Atheists first of all think that the existence of God is highly unlikely, and they hold out hope that one day we'll be able to prove it too. Agnostics, too, would tend to take the possibility of the existence of gods such as Yahweh seriously. Atheists don't.

WVB

>I'm reading your comments, and this is what I see. You're talking about "you" and "I",
>clearly distinguishing between the two. You're using words like "in", "center", "touch",
>clearly based on the reality of the physical world. And yet, using that same language,
>you're trying to extract or abstract yourself from it, not only yourself, but me too.
>It isn't going to work.

This sounds vague. I can only address specifics.

I have already explained that  the term *I * can be used differently. *I* and *You* can be used as terms to describe consciousness, regardless of content, regardless of whatever follows *I*. That  consciouness is the same for you and me, and for my dog too.

Now you've added a dog to the mix. A dog is a physical thing. And your consciousness is not the same as mine. That's why we're disagreeing here. You're working on a computer. That computer is not something that your consciousness conjured up. Its reality can be objectively verified.

I think you need to start reading up on science, Jason, rather than Buddhism. Don't get me wrong, I *do* like Buddhism. It is one religion for which I have a tremendous amount of respect. But from science you will learn that it is possible to formally describe physical reality, that it behaves mathematically, and it can be measured. And all that shows clearly that that reality exists independently of mind.

Mathematical thought is not consciousness-driven. Mathematical truths are timeless, objective and absolute, even if they *do* apply only within the context of the original axioms. The fact that reality can be measured and shown to conform to a mathematical model is proof enough for me that it is objectively real.

Dog's are always good to throw into the mix. Mu!

Consciousness is the same for you and I, just as the water in India is the same as the water in the Irish Sea! The contents of consciousness may differ, but in essence it's the same.

I think you need to start reading up on science, Jason.

Sorry I give that impression. As well as studying physics and chemistry in the sixth form, when I was 17 I read the latest edition of Asimov's work, plus a whole bunch of other books that popularised science. I then studied environmental science at degree level for two years, where I scored high marks in areas of geology and ecology. I've never ceased to be interested in science, and even today I subscibe to New Scientist weekly and read it cover to cover. It's such good entertainment. I always read it a breakfast, then read select hindu and buddhist books before I go to bed.

The "physical reality" you speak of is not independant of mind. It can be measured by the mind because of the mind. Mind is part of it, and mind is in it, and it is in mind. It is mind. Without mind, no thing exists, no time exists, not even space exists. Everything exists only in relation to mind. And mind is one. Differences between your mind and my mind, or anyone elses mind, are negligible in this context. Without mind, it is meaningless to even speak of an "objective" reality.  The abolsute exists for sure,  but not as the "world". No-one can say what it is, but you can call it lots of uns and ins. Like it is undifferentiated, unmanifest, indescribable, and so on. Or, try to imagine what the universe would look like if time suddenly didn't exist.