A perspective Gun would prove God, and solve all the world's problems eventually

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

Again, no. Not unless this is a Brainwashing Gun rather than a Perspective Gun.

really that's it? not much weight in that statement to be honest .....

Plenty of weight, actually. Seeing your point of view is not the same as accepting your point of view.

Not exactly. If you shot me with said Perspective Gun, I would undoubtedly see exactly why you think that God exists.

actually you would see that there is no thought involved ...for any thought is merely a picture or label over something that already is inherently in and of itself devoid of what anyone thinks of it.

Fair enough. But the point remains. I would see why you believe in God, but I would not be under any pressure to accept that viewpoint as my own unless the Perspective Gun doubled as a Brainwashing Gun.

it would not mean that I accept that God exists. I would just see why you do. I would then be free to dismiss that point of view as much as I am free to dismiss it now.

thats the point of the thread ...I honestly would bet everything I own ....that upon being shot by the perspective Gun (by an experiencer of God) in the aftermath it would be impossible to dismiss it, let alone to even see it as a subjective point of view.

Well, it's fine if you believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

reply to post by NorEaster

Your consciousness itself provides powerful filters. Ever hear of a thing called cognitive dissonance. It exists as a direct result of your consciousness doing a triage effort on the waves of sensory input you receive every instant. Without that triage effort, you'd suffer from extreme autism, and you'd be incapacitated. That triage effort that allows you to make any sense at all of the experience of existence is an aggressive filter, and you've been crafting that filter protocol since the day your brain clicked on.

there is a state prior to consciousness, prior to filters, prior to anything perceived ...it is something infinite and carries also infinite intelligence ....and so operating from that state doesn't necessarily require a triage effort in the same way that you think it should.

Sorry, you can't experience anything without it being filtered. Not anything.

that right there is a filter ...so obvious ...

Unless you obliterate the section of your brain that is used to filter (I wouldn't recommend it) sensory and ruminational input, you simply can't experience anything that hasn't been vetted by your consciousness to make sense with what's become already established as potentially real for your mind to that point. The discarding of input data that clashes with that established potential is what is called cognitive dissonance. It's the BS detector, and your mind has one, and you really have no immediate control over what it will shunt to the trash bin.

again there is an infinite state prior to everything you just said ....how can you yourself ever experience that if you already put all of these absolute filters in place ....none of which exist from the perspective of that state ...and all of which, if simply dropped, allow entrance into that state.

Yes, drugs do induce a relative, subjective state, but so do states of belief. We all experience what we experience, and we all perceive those experiences differently. I remember this one guy I knew in high school who became a "Jesus freak" (that's what the kids in the 70s called local born-agains who suddenly converted and started preaching at McDonalds while standing on the outside tables). We all went to the same dentist (very small town) and I heard word that this kid got three molars drilled out without any Novocain at all. Just sitting there and smiling with "the Lord keeping the pain away". That was is experience of getting three back teeth drilled out. Nothing objective about that.

again .....there is something prior to belief .....has nothing to do nor depends on belief .....and is prior to subjective experience......

Nothing is objective in connection with experience. That's the brilliance of the human mind, and why the creation of it is so valuable.

If there is objectivity ...in and of itself it experiences itself as objectivity ......It stands alone. so to say, "Nothing is objective in connection with experience." is just a statement from a subjective mind.

and yet this Objectivity is accessible ...the only entrance fee is to drop all notions of subjectivity ....quite a mystical feat wouldn't you agree ?

You may have misunderstood what I meant with that statement. Let me try again. If something you believe to be true clashes with 5 existential staples - like consistency, progressive development, unique identity, logic, and event ramification - then is it right to insist that these 5 existential staples be dismissed, or is it more responsible to re-examine what you believe to be true? If your belief violates any one of these existential staples, then what is it that elevates your belief to a level that it has the natural authority to supplant a staple that literally anchors reality as we all know and experience it?

doesnt matter ..... it is something that has nothing to do with belief or a point of view ...it is the nature of reality.... I can only speak about it in retrospect ..... again something that is prior to anyone experiencing it .... to enter there the experiencer has to move out of the way.

The truth exists, and it's right under your nose. You'd be shocked at how obvious it is once you've recognized it for what it is.

yea I agree...... but to limit it to the following statement:

Your belief belongs to you, but reality belongs to everything. That's because everything combines to establish what is real, regardless of whether you know what it is that is real or not. And the truth about reality, is that it is relentlessly redundant, since replication is the cheapest form of organization and structure. Ask any engineer. That means that what is true shows up everywhere, and at all levels of existential sophistication. In fact, that's what the axiom "As above, so below" means. It's the basis of rudimentary structure.

well thats just limiting what is to your minds ineterpretation of it....

what I am talking about is experiencing all of reality without any filters..... not even the filter of a "me that is experiencing That" ...... what is left over is something that is Alive and Infinite.....

reply to post by Golden Boy

Plenty of weight, actually. Seeing your point of view is not the same as accepting your point of view.

But what of the point of view is freedom from any point of view .......that would have nothing to do with accepting my point of view .....

Fair enough. But the point remains. I would see why you believe in God, but I would not be under any pressure to accept that viewpoint as my own unless the Perspective Gun doubled as a Brainwashing Gun.

well from certain peoples p.o.v. getting shot by One would be freedom from all brainwashing ...even the release from subjectivity itself....

Originally posted by dominicus
there is a state prior to consciousness, prior to filters, prior to anything perceived ...it is something infinite and carries also infinite intelligence ....and so operating from that state doesn't necessarily require a triage effort in the same way that you think it should.

You can state this, of course, but it carries no weight without evidence backing it. There is no evidence that humans can experience anything outside our cognitive filters. Your statement is an interesting idea, but ultimately meaningless, as the only reasonable conclusion we can draw, without you presenting anything to establish it as correct, is that it is false.

Sorry, you can't experience anything without it being filtered. Not anything.

that right there is a filter ...so obvious ...

Well, yes, it is. That's the point.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

Plenty of weight, actually. Seeing your point of view is not the same as accepting your point of view.

But what of the point of view is freedom from any point of view

Then it isn't a point of view, and the Perspective Gun wouldn't work.

Word games aside, if that is the case, then yes, it would work that way. But I see no reason to think that that is actually the case.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by adjensen

 

... but respect the fact that they have conclusions, that they're as entitled to them as you are, and that they likely feel as "right" as you do, even if you disagree 100%.

No, nobody is entitled to be a child molester

Kind of playing Devil's Advocate at this point for obvious reasons, but, as I said the issue is about whether a person is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of what that opinion is and whether you agree with it or not, are you suggesting that mind control or lobotomies would be reasonable treatments for persons who exhibited the beliefs (not behaviours -- there's nothing to say that someone who thinks child abuse is fine could think that without ever acting on it) that you think no one should be entitled to?

Do you have a right to lobotomize someone for believing something, whether they act on it or not?

reply to post by Golden Boy

You can state this, of course, but it carries no weight without evidence backing it. There is no evidence that humans can experience anything outside our cognitive filters.

you just proved my point .....it is the skepticism of such a possibility that prevents one from investigating whether or not this is true .....and since it is a requirement that everything is suspended (yes even skepticism) to enter such a reality ....well then you see the point all together.

It is not a matter for evidence or not ......we have realities such as the inherent nature of existence that is completely as of now outside of the boundaries of what "humans with cognitive filters" have established as the confines of evidence based on the limits of cognitive filters!!! That's a complete sham!!!!

Your statement is an interesting idea, but ultimately meaningless, as the only reasonable conclusion we can draw, without you presenting anything to establish it as correct, is that it is false.

but you see the paradox .....what I am discussing is not limited to reason, is prior to reason, but even reason itself can point to it. Thankfully, there are a few brave souls out there that take the plunge so to speak ...and find this to be true.... that there is a living reality devoid of points of view, devoid of subjectivity.... That is the Absolute ....but of course any words about "That" ....pales in comparison to "That ....words are like fingers pointing towards the moon ...but not the moon itself.

Sorry, you can't experience anything without it being filtered. Not anything.

that right there is a filter ...so obvious ...

Well, yes, it is. That's the point.

well my point being ...that an experiencer of Absolute God ....would ultimately be able to shoot the perspective gun at somebody like yourself ...which would then result in a reality that exists devoid of subjectivity, filters ...and yet is entirely Objective, experiencing itself ...infinite and aware......

as a result afterwards ...... there isn't a question of brainwashing, or point of view, or perspective, or even doubting that This was God .....because ultimately anything after the fact ...becomes a subjective opinion, which means nothing in the face of what Is.

Then it isn't a point of view, and the Perspective Gun wouldn't work.

Word games aside, if that is the case, then yes, it would work that way. But I see no reason to think that that is actually the case.

well of course the gun itself is theoretical for now .....but lets just say in the future one can be made....

It would most def be a game changer...

and while you see no reason to think that That is actually the case. I saw that it is vital to examine "reason" "thought" and everything else....eventually finding that subjectivity is merely an idea, a thought, has no reality .....and as an experience, what results is the release from subjectivity and a dropping into the Nature of reality , i.e. the existence of God ....

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Your consciousness itself provides powerful filters. Ever hear of a thing called cognitive dissonance. It exists as a direct result of your consciousness doing a triage effort on the waves of sensory input you receive every instant. Without that triage effort, you'd suffer from extreme autism, and you'd be incapacitated. That triage effort that allows you to make any sense at all of the experience of existence is an aggressive filter, and you've been crafting that filter protocol since the day your brain clicked on.

there is a state prior to consciousness, prior to filters, prior to anything perceived ...it is something infinite and carries also infinite intelligence ....and so operating from that state doesn't necessarily require a triage effort in the same way that you think it should.

Look, you seem like a really nice guy. Great attitude and all that, so I want to be cool with you. And, it's pretty hard for me sometimes to be cool with people, so I hope you appreciate that I want to be decent to you over this. The real problem I have with this entire category of belief (all the folks who dismiss reality as if it's a pain in the *ss that we all need to get over) is that every Jonestown that's ever cropped up has been built on this very way of seeing things. And to be honest, it really creeps me out. The state prior to consciousness is not a state that you have ever experienced, and while I'll never be able to convince you of this, I really hope that anyone else reading this exchange takes a moment to consider the implication of suggesting an experienceable state that precludes consciousness. The raw notion of it violates itself completely, and within the space of 5 words within the one statement.

Sorry, you can't experience anything without it being filtered. Not anything.

that right there is a filter ...so obvious ...

As was your immediate dismissal of it as being true. Seriously. Consider that for a moment. Yes, I understand that my perception and perspective is filtered. I'm not claiming that it's not. I'm just insisting that you're is as well.

Unless you obliterate the section of your brain that is used to filter (I wouldn't recommend it) sensory and ruminational input, you simply can't experience anything that hasn't been vetted by your consciousness to make sense with what's become already established as potentially real for your mind to that point. The discarding of input data that clashes with that established potential is what is called cognitive dissonance. It's the BS detector, and your mind has one, and you really have no immediate control over what it will shunt to the trash bin.

again there is an infinite state prior to everything you just said ....how can you yourself ever experience that if you already put all of these absolute filters in place ....none of which exist from the perspective of that state ...and all of which, if simply dropped, allow entrance into that state.

Again, I want to be decent here. The truth is that you experience everything via your conscious awareness. You only experience anything by this means. Your sensory systems might be supplying input, or it may be input being routed from memory cells, or possibly information from sources that have yet to be fully explained (residual or maybe even dynamic information sources) but the taking in of that information is done by your conscious mind, and then stored within your short term memory (the storing of it is what you actually experience as corporeal awareness) for use as a consistency monitor so that each moment makes sense with the last moment, and your daily life isn't a disjointed series of fractured segments that make no sense from one to the next.

This necessary establishment of continuum consistency is why the filters are employed by your mind. It's raw survival for the corporeal whole. You'd never make it through a day if you couldn't link one moment up to the last moment. Hell, if everyone was like that - even for an hour - let's just be glad they're not. It'd be complete mayhem. Either that or it'd be flocks of people writhing in corners. Probably the latter of the two. Mayhem requires understanding how to bring the hammer forward again after cocking it back. A complete loss of filtered continuum consistency would literally cripple a brain.

Yes, drugs do induce a relative, subjective state, but so do states of belief. We all experience what we experience, and we all perceive those experiences differently. I remember this one guy I knew in high school who became a "Jesus freak" (that's what the kids in the 70s called local born-agains who suddenly converted and started preaching at McDonalds while standing on the outside tables). We all went to the same dentist (very small town) and I heard word that this kid got three molars drilled out without any Novocain at all. Just sitting there and smiling with "the Lord keeping the pain away". That was his experience of getting three back teeth drilled out. Nothing objective about that.

again .....there is something prior to belief .....has nothing to do nor depends on belief .....and is prior to subjective experience......

(cough)

Nothing is objective in connection with experience. That's the brilliance of the human mind, and why the creation of it is so valuable.

If there is objectivity ...in and of itself it experiences itself as objectivity ......It stands alone. so to say, "Nothing is objective in connection with experience." is just a statement from a subjective mind.

and yet this Objectivity is accessible ...the only entrance fee is to drop all notions of subjectivity ....quite a mystical feat wouldn't you agree ?

I would if I believed that it was anything more substantive than a philosophical riff that's been played a bit too much these days. The bitch is that there's no evidence at all that such objectivity is accessible by way of simple experience. It can be approached by way of logical evaluation and extremely rigid extrapolation, but that's serious work, and not the kind of thing that one "feels". In fact, true examination by way of raw logic unearths things that force one to let go of the more comforting notions, and seek comfort in very new and unsettling notions. It can take years to work out the issues that arise from really running such a thing down.

Knowledge is not always comfortable. Belief is comfortable, but knowledge...knowledge is finding out that your mom is Santa, and that if she can't afford it, you won't get it for Christmas. Bad news in one sense, but it can be pretty great to learn that she loves you enough to go broke each Christmas on your behalf. Like I said, you find the comforting aspects of learning too much, eventually.

You may have misunderstood what I meant with that statement. Let me try again. If something you believe to be true clashes with 5 existential staples - like consistency, progressive development, unique identity, logic, and event ramification - then is it right to insist that these 5 existential staples be dismissed, or is it more responsible to re-examine what you believe to be true? If your belief violates any one of these existential staples, then what is it that elevates your belief to a level that it has the natural authority to supplant a staple that literally anchors reality as we all know and experience it?

doesnt matter ..... it is something that has nothing to do with belief or a point of view ...it is the nature of reality.... I can only speak about it in retrospect ..... again something that is prior to anyone experiencing it .... to enter there the experiencer has to move out of the way.

Then it can't be experienced. You nailed it right there. If there is no experiencer, then there is no experience. Seems pretty clear to me.

Your belief belongs to you, but reality belongs to everything. That's because everything combines to establish what is real, regardless of whether you know what it is that is real or not. And the truth about reality, is that it is relentlessly redundant, since replication is the cheapest form of organization and structure. Ask any engineer. That means that what is true shows up everywhere, and at all levels of existential sophistication. In fact, that's what the axiom "As above, so below" means. It's the basis of rudimentary structure.

well thats just limiting what is to your minds ineterpretation of it....

what I am talking about is experiencing all of reality without any filters..... not even the filter of a "me that is experiencing That" ...... what is left over is something that is Alive and Infinite.....

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my view, whatever allows you to love people and care about them without expectation of reward is a wonderful view of life and reality. If this does this for you, then I'm sure that God loves it. I'm challenging it for the sake of lurkers and guests. I don't disrespect any belief that takes the jagged edges off a person, and teaches them how to care unconditionally. The truth is that unconditional love is the only real triumph that a human being can achieve. Beyond that, it's about identity and the basic existential stuff of dynamic existence. Love is the only win that exists for any of us, and it only flashes for moments here and there. Still, it takes a certain way of approaching life to even be in the room when the opportunity to love like that knocks on the door for prize handouts. If you're not in the room, then you'll miss that knock.

Nice exchange anyway.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

You can state this, of course, but it carries no weight without evidence backing it. There is no evidence that humans can experience anything outside our cognitive filters.

you just proved my point .....it is the skepticism of such a possibility that prevents one from investigating whether or not this is true .....and since it is a requirement that everything is suspended (yes even skepticism) to enter such a reality ....well then you see the point all together.

Again, you can say this all you want. You can claim that it proves your point all you want. But merely saying it doesn't make it true.

What you have posted here contradicts everything that we know about reality. There is absolutely no reason to think that it is true. All we have is your word, and your word doesn't measure up very well to the collected knowledge of every cognitive scientist on the planet, no matter how much you say "you must suspend skepticism".

the next bit is simply repetition of the same claim, so I'mma snip it. the next line is dominicus again

well of course the gun itself is theoretical for now .....but lets just say in the future one can be made....

No. I meant that your claim about experiencing objectivity is unsupported, not the possibility of a Perspective Gun.

reply to post by NorEaster

Look, you seem like a really nice guy. Great attitude and all that, so I want to be cool with you. And, it's pretty hard for me sometimes to be cool with people, so I hope you appreciate that I want to be decent to you over this. The real problem I have with this entire category of belief (all the folks who dismiss reality as if it's a pain in the *ss that we all need to get over) is that every Jonestown that's ever cropped up has been built on this very way of seeing things. And to be honest, it really creeps me out.

ok so agree to disagree then ......again it has nothing to with belief. Beliefs are simply thoughts, ideas, imaginations ...and I'm not talking about that, nor does it have anything to do with any jonestown or wanting out of this reality.

The state prior to consciousness is not a state that you have ever experienced

its just a play on words..... technically there is no I, or subjective point of view, that can experience the source of consciousness. But there is a source of consciousness that has nothing to with the brain, limited to the body or brain, etc.

To say that I havent experienced it is technically true, I've had to leave aside myself and limited subjective personal consciousness in order for the experience of consciousness itself devoid of subjectivity or p.o.v. to be an experience of itself.....

....so on the other end of that it is impossible for me to say that there isn't a universal source of consciousness that itself is objective.

, and while I'll never be able to convince you of this, I really hope that anyone else reading this exchange takes a moment to consider the implication of suggesting an experienceable state that precludes consciousness. The raw notion of it violates itself completely, and within the space of 5 words within the one statement.

we can all experience what it is to be unconscious .....and yet it is impossible to believe that there is something prior to consciousness or the source of it? If that is the case then it is by far based on the impositions and limits created by limited consciousness ....

As was your immediate dismissal of it as being true. Seriously. Consider that for a moment. Yes, I understand that my perception and perspective is filtered. I'm not claiming that it's not. I'm just insisting that you're is as well.

well of course mine is as well .....anything communicated is immediately a perception and ultimately filtered ....however there is still a state/reality/being that is devoid of any filters and includes all perception, by not be limited to any perception ...then soon as anything is said about That ...a filter is created.

The truth is that you experience everything via your conscious awareness. You only experience anything by this means. Your sensory systems might be supplying input, or it may be input being routed from memory cells, or possibly information from sources that have yet to be fully explained (residual or maybe even dynamic information sources) but the taking in of that information is done by your conscious mind, and then stored within your short term memory (the storing of it is what you actually experience as corporeal awareness) for use as a consistency monitor so that each moment makes sense with the last moment, and your daily life isn't a disjointed series of fractured segments that make no sense from one to the next.

ok cool ....I dont disagree with any of that ..so were cool ....however I want to add to this. Thus far your model is of everything external happening to conscious awareness..... what I am saying is to investigate conscious awareness itself ......see what the source of it is .... and you will find through direct experience that it leads to a state that is prior to it and not limited to anything, place, body, brain, etc.

This necessary establishment of continuum consistency is why the filters are employed by your mind. It's raw survival for the corporeal whole.

ok thats cool ....I agree

You'd never make it through a day if you couldn't link one moment up to the last moment. Hell, if everyone was like that - even for an hour - let's just be glad they're not. It'd be complete mayhem. Either that or it'd be flocks of people writhing in corners. Probably the latter of the two. Mayhem requires understanding how to bring the hammer forward again after cocking it back. A complete loss of filtered continuum consistency would literally cripple a brain.

Thats not the case however ...it seems that was is prior to, or the source of conscious awareness, is an Absolute that is devoid of filters and yet includes all intelligence ...it is the ultimate State from which to Be, act, Live, speak ....... although I myself am still working on the mechanics of this ..... (this is from where the Jesus' and Budhhas operated)

I would if I believed that it was anything more substantive than a philosophical riff that's been played a bit too much these days.

thats the whole problem right there...... the whole spiel of "I haven't experienced it, have no reason to based on my own set of logic/reason, therefore maintaining skepticism, which leads to other investigation of said reality. Self created biases and filters are exactly the doors that stay locked to the Absolute Truth.

The bitch is that there's no evidence at all that such objectivity is accessible by way of simple experience. It can be approached by way of logical evaluation and extremely rigid extrapolation, but that's serious work, and not the kind of thing that one "feels". In fact, true examination by way of raw logic unearths things that force one to let go of the more comforting notions, and seek comfort in very new and unsettling notions. It can take years to work out the issues that arise from really running such a thing down.

yeah ...the whole "no evidence of it" is definitely a bitch. It seems for now it can only be somehow accessed and seen ....and only be the dropping of all points of view and subjectivity .....and yet out of that same deal ....a subjectivity is put on and something is said about "That."

Then it can't be experienced. You nailed it right there. If there is no experiencer, then there is no experience. Seems pretty clear to me.

but thats not the end .........at a point where there is no experiencer and nothing to be experienced .....in the midst of that, there is something that remains and it is pure objectivity.... it seems to be alive (in retrospect), in the dropping of experiencer and experienced ...there is a merging into what is prior to all of that.

The truth is that unconditional love is the only real triumph that a human being can achieve. Beyond that, it's about identity and the basic existential stuff of dynamic existence. Love is the only win that exists for any of us, and it only flashes for moments here and there. Still, it takes a certain way of approaching life to even be in the room when the opportunity to love like that knocks on the door for prize handouts. If you're not in the room, then you'll miss that knock. Nice exchange anyway.

well yea I can not possibly argue with this ......I can just add it seems this Source of all things, prior to and inherent in all things, itself is God and it is also at the same time somehow also Love (that is the source of Absolute morals - Transcendent selfless Love)

reply to post by Golden Boy

Again, you can say this all you want. You can claim that it proves your point all you want. But merely saying it doesn't make it true.

thankfully Im not the only one talking about this ....

What you have posted here contradicts everything that we know about reality. There is absolutely no reason to think that it is true. All we have is your word, and your word doesn't measure up very well to the collected knowledge of every cognitive scientist on the planet, no matter how much you say "you must suspend skepticism".

Does not contradict .....everything we know about reality is "pieces" of the whole. Its like knowing meteorology without comprehending the vastness of space that it all takes place in.

Cognitive scientists again have only the confines of the inherent filters of collective cognizance creating the limits of what we know today. Its relative, just like 200 years from now they will look at us today as a ancient and unkowledgable collective based on where they will be then.

No. I meant that your claim about experiencing objectivity is unsupported, not the possibility of a Perspective Gun.

well then the problem is your "version" of support...... I have seen others talk abut what I talk about, investigated it, found it to Be real ......and all thats left is for science to eventually one day catch up to it and say ....yup, its real.

yes these are all words, however they point to something extremely substantial at the heart and core of all reality.

Originally posted by dominicus
thankfully Im not the only one talking about this ....

Even if you aren't, it's irrelevant. The number of people who think the same thing as you has no bearing on the truth or falsity of your beliefs.

Does not contradict

It very much does.

everything we know about reality is "pieces" of the whole.

You can say this all you want, but you need to back it up before anyone will accept it.

well then the problem is your "version" of support...... I have seen others talk abut what I talk about, investigated it, found it to Be real ......and all thats left is for science to eventually one day catch up to it and say ....yup, its real.

And there's no reason to think that science will ever validate your beliefs. So why should we believe them?

Originally posted by dominicus
However, I know for certain ......for those who doubt, that one shot of a perspective Gun, from someone who experiences God, would be all it takes for you to marvel at the Awe of such an Infinite Being.

So what you're basically saying is that "God" is essentially a feeling that you get. Mild euphoria, perhaps, combined with a little vertigo. I tend to agree with you, since nobody seems to be actually able to define (and therefore prove) the existence of whatever this "God" thing (?) is. And you sure can't prove it by what it does, since it also doesn't appear to do anything, whatever it is.

So I can buy that it's a kind of feeling. A little too much incense and singing causing nausea and light-headedness. Not very impressive, though.

Originally posted by adjensen
The best advice that my Dad ever gave me (and he's a pretty bright fellow, so it's good advice

) was to always bear in mind that everyone has their own perspective, and theirs is most likely as important and valid to them as yours is to you, so whenever you are having trouble relating to someone, step back and think about things from their point of view. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, or even support them, just take a few minutes to think about why they would feel that way.

Yeah, and if that person decides that from their perspective you're an infidel, and since you can't be made to see things their way, the best thing to end your suffering in ignorance is to kill you and let their deity educate you directly, then what do you do?

reply to post by Golden Boy

And there's no reason to think that science will ever validate your beliefs. So why should we believe them?

1. because it has nothing at all to do with beliefs......
2. Because other folks who have known and experienced this Truth, like a guy from 2,500 years ago named Kanada who first theorized the existence of an Atom, also say eventually science will catch up.

I dont understand where this whole "belief" thing comes from ......when I've made it clear that what I'm talking about is something that has nothing to do with beliefs. It simply is what It is ..regardless of beliefs.
___________
In reply to Blue-Shift:

So what you're basically saying is that "God" is essentially a feeling that you get. Mild euphoria, perhaps, combined with a little vertigo. I tend to agree with you, since nobody seems to be actually able to define (and therefore prove) the existence of whatever this "God" thing (?) is. And you sure can't prove it by what it does, since it also doesn't appear to do anything, whatever it is.

nope ......has nothing to do with a feeling I get.... It is something that is entirely beyond "feelings", beyond 'I', and beyond "getting" anything.

Yeah, and if that person decides that from their perspective you're an infidel, and since you can't be made to see things their way, the best thing to end your suffering in ignorance is to kill you and let their deity educate you directly, then what do you do?

Thats the cool thing about the Absolute ......because everything is seen as a play of egoic subjectivity .....and so their is no need to kill..... this is just acceptance to what is, Love, and a clear understanding of the mechanics of ego

The best evidence i can think of for god is deductive argument like this:

1) Intelligence, overall, will increase as the universe ages
2) Time travel is possible
Conclusion: Intelligence will increase until the whole universe is intelligent, and then this intelligence will travel both into the past and into the future and reign supreme over all things. So life itself could in fact be the creation of a god that doesn't exist yet but only exists as a time traveler. So god exists because of life and life exists because of god - a fully four dimensional reality not a three dimensions reality that's A->B->C but instead A->B->C->A. In essence, we ourselves are the forefathers of this god consciousness that will evolve far in the distant future.

But how can this be? Isn't this a paradox? Not as I see it. Life never evolved without god, as we live in a four dimensional reality. There could be time travelers right now impacting our own reality. Reality is not NOW, it's the past and the future all at once. What happens now is all possibilities realized.

Do I believe any of this? No, but it's the best I can come up with.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
The best evidence i can think of for god is deductive argument like this:

1) Intelligence, overall, will increase as the universe ages

Bare assertion. In fact, we have reason to think otherwise. Entropy and all that.

2) Time travel is possible

Also bare assertion. In fact, there are several arguments against this premise.

Conclusion: Intelligence will increase until the whole universe is intelligent and then this intelligence will travel both into the past and into the future and reign supreme over all things. So life itself could in fact be the creation of a god that doesn't exist yet but only exists as a time traveler.

A Dan Simmons fan, are we?

So god exists because of life and life exists because of god - a fully four dimensional reality not a three dimensions reality that's A->B->C but instead A->B->C->A.

So, in other words, a circular argument.

reply to post by Golden Boy

1) Intelligence, overall, will increase as the universe ages

Bare assertion. In fact, we have reason to think otherwise. Entropy and all that.

i mean its rather obvious that intelligence has increased and continues to so .....how is that a bare assertion?
we went from using rocks as spears to the internet. Everyday new scientific findings, evolutions, etc .....it does take much to see how obvious of a fact this is..

....i would even argue were not too far from an actual perspective gun ...(to keep things on topic)

reply to post by dominicus


Wow, that would just be awesome!
I wish it were possible...

Vicky

reply to post by dominicus


I remember once that a person who was "against" me, initially started to figure out my mind and what I felt. I allowed them to dig deeper (empathetically) but I had to stop them as they were about to have a breakdown realising what I felt inside was far deeper than their regular eyes could see...

Originally posted by SystemResistor
reply to post by dominicus

 

I remember once that a person who was "against" me, initially started to figure out my mind and what I felt. I allowed them to dig deeper (empathetically) but I had to stop them as they were about to have a breakdown realising what I felt inside was far deeper than their regular eyes could see...

You don't say....

A breakdown, no less.

From realizing what you felt?

I'm in awe.