Buddha

[Sip]

You personally have had absolutely no first hand knowledge of these evidences. You personally have experienced nearly ZERO of the scientific truths. You take science and scientists by faith, and so do I.

 

That is absolutely NOT true. I have not run particle accelrator experiments in my home but I have seen the evidence. The published evidence of a repeatable scientific work is VERY different than the unverifiable claims of some philosopher with an overactive imagination.

 

Does this say that ALL scientific results are infallible and irrefutable? Of course not. But to claim I have had absolutely no first hand knowledge of these evidences and equate it with non scientific "knowledge" is not a correct way to proceed.

[Sasun]

No but I think people like sSebB misunderstand you. He maintains a position that there is a LOT of evidence of God etc. But you acknowledged you just believe without evidence. I just wanted that to be crystal clear ... he thinks he agrees with you but in fact he does not.

Just to clarify, I was talking only about my post about three worlds. As to God it is much more significant, and I personally do not take God the same way as the post. There are actually a lot of evidences of God. For example, the beauty in a flower is evidence of God because God is the source of beauty. The fact that we have intelligence is also evidence of God because God is the source of intelligence. There are a lot of easy-to-see evidences like that. Of course, if you were looking for a videotape of God, I don't think that kind of evidence exists. God is Spirit and non-physical but He manifests through the physical.

 

BTW, I don't know if sSeb's evidences are the same as mine.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Sasun

[Sasun]

That is absolutely NOT true. I have not run particle accelrator experiments in my home but I have seen the evidence. The published evidence of a repeatable scientific work is VERY different than the unverifiable claims of some philosopher with an overactive imagination.

So basically you are saying you have not run experiments but you could have run and repeat what is said in publications. Methods of meditation also are clearly stated and explained. In essence my evidence and your evidence are the same because they are repeatable, and not necessarily our own. The mystic experiences too are repeatable, otherwise they could not be truthful. Repeatability consists in doing tested methods of meditation and arriving at objective truth. Call a meditation an inner experiment. You, I, everyone can have those experiences. There are tested methods of meditation that for thousands of years have proved to be right. Those who have seriously practiced meditation have come to the same realizations as others, even though they use different words. Mystics are not nearly as many as scientists, hence they are unknown and not easily understood or accepted. Other than that, I don't see any essential difference between a scientist and a spiritual scientist. They are both in search of truth, the former in the physical and the latter beyond the physical. All religious truths come from mystical realizations.

[Sip]

For example, the beauty in a flower is evidence of God because God is the source of beauty.

 

That is a meaningless statement. Take the word "God" and replace with any arbitrary noun. The meaning of the statement doesn't change. I could just as easily say: "For example, the beauty in a flower is evidence of Azat, because Azat is the source of beauty." Just because you chose to label the source of beauty as God, doesn't mean you said anything. All you have is come up with a tautology.

[Sasun]

That is a meaningless statement. Take the word "God" and replace with any arbitrary noun. The meaning of the statement doesn't change. I could just as easily say: "For example, the beauty in a flower is evidence of Azat, because Azat is the source of beauty." Just because you chose to label the source of beauty as God, doesn't mean you said anything. All you have is come up with a tautology.

Since when is Azat the source of beauty? You are mechanically replacing the word. God is by definition the source of beauty, intelligence, wisdom, life, etc... To understand that I am right you need to concentrate on beauty and on God.

[Sasun]

Sip, why don't you try meditation? Aren't you curious what it is? I will tell what I have actually experienced: practice breathing meditation every day at the same hour. Sit straight and follow your breath for half and hour in the morning and half an hour at night. Just concentrate on your breath and follow it, don't be distracted by any thoughts. Don't try to mentally control your breath, only follow. Depending on your will power and persistence after some months you will get a glimpse of the beyond on your own. It is hard to control thoughts, but not impossible. Otherwise words are useless and this conversation is useless.

 

P.S. Before meditation let 2 hours pass after meals, and preferably take a shower.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Sasun

[Sip]

Since when is Azat the source of beauty? You are mechanically replacing the word. God is by definition the source of beauty, intelligence, wisdom, life, etc... To understand that I am right you need to concentrate on beauty and on God.

 

That IS the point ... you are defining something as source of beauty and then using it as evidence for something beautiful. That IS a tautology. You have not said anything meaningful.

[Sasun]

That IS the point ... you are defining something as source of beauty and then using it as evidence for something beautiful. That IS a tautology. You have not said anything meaningful.

It seems tautology because you are treating it mechanically. You can't define God anyway you want. There is a general understanding of God, even to the atheist the word "God" means something that generally implies that God is supposed to be good.

From that understanding follows that beauty must be originated from God. Because God is good, then since beauty is also perceived as good then God is the source of the beauty in the flower.

 

For someone who does not think God exists, I would like to know what they think the source of beauty is.

[Sip]

There is a general understanding of God ...

 

There was a general understanding that many women were witches a few hundred years ago. "General understanding" is not enough to validate a statement. But general understanding or not, God is defined as the source of everything good and then used to justify the existence of good things. It is not just because mechanically your statement is a tautology. It is by its nature that it is a tautology.

[Sasun]

I tried to say the above with logic, but the best way to see the connection is to concentrate on beauty, and concentrate on God. When you see that they have something in common then it will be apparent that the beauty in the flower is nothing else than a manifestation of God.

[Sasun]

There was a general understanding that many women were witches a few hundred years ago. "General understanding" is not enough to validate a statement. But general understanding or not, God is defined as the source of everything good and then used to justify the existence of good things. It is not just because mechanically your statement is a tautology. It is by its nature that it is a tautology.

Well, if my undertanding is wrong then tell me what is the source of beauty?

[Sip]

... I would like to know what they think the source of beauty is.

 

Beauty is a subjective term used to describe certain desirable qualities. For a flower, the aroma, the color, texture, and the visual appeal of it is generally considered "beautiful". A flower is beautiful because there exist other things that are not beautiful (for relative comparison). So beauty in and of itself does not exist. Beauty only apprears when there is ugliness. I think we have had numerous threads in the past where this topic has been discussed.

 

So this is another reason why the definition of "God" and "Devil" are rather arbitrary. Everything good is grouped together under the label of "God", while everything bad is often grouped together under the label of "evil" ... while neither could exist without the other.

[Sasun]

There was a general understanding that many women were witches a few hundred years ago. "General understanding" is not enough to validate a statement. But general understanding or not, God is defined as the source of everything good and then used to justify the existence of good things. It is not just because mechanically your statement is a tautology. It is by its nature that it is a tautology.

I don't know what many women being witches is about, but I know for sure the word "woman" is generally not associated with being a witch. That is simply not part of the definition of the word. However, the word "God" is not arbitrarily defined. If there is God then God is good, being "good" is part of the concept of God. You cannot make up a different definition for a word that already exists in this form.

[Sasun]

Beauty only apprears when there is ugliness.

 

Yes, but you cannot say that ugliness is the source of beauty. Ugliness makes you realize that there is a beauty, but doesn't explain where beauty comes from.

[DominO123]

Sip, I have to disagree with you, or perhaps request a clarification from your part.

 

You should not equate truth with things which are physicial, neither pretend that to be able to establish something we have to study something physical(in contradiction with something non-physical).

 

Mathematics is based on something which is totally metaphysical, yet it produces the most powerful "proofs" that we will ever be able to find.

 

Philosophers philosophy is not necessarly the result of an overreactive imagination, various philosophers have argumentation constructions which are to compare with the argumentation structure in many domains in science.

 

Also, just to remind you, that one of the things you can be so sure of, is the existance of your self-awarness which is not physical itself, yet you are convinced and will be ready to place your hand on fire as garanty that this is a truth that you don't even have to establish.

 

What to say about the Qualia? Do we need any validation for the Qualia, self-awarness, mathematics?

[Sip]

I don't know what many women being witches is about, but I know for sure the word "woman" is generally not associated with being a witch. ..

 

Ha ha ... not to you right now but those people back then just KNEW. That's why I say this just knowing business is VERY dangerous.

[Sip]

Mathematics is based on something which is totally metaphysical, yet it produces the most powerful "proofs" that we will ever be able to find.

 

Mathematics is based on a set of very clearly defined set of axioms. For example, these are some of the basic Euler postulates:

 

* Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.

* If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

* If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.

* Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.

* The whole is greater than the part.

* It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

* It is possible to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line

 

You can not prove or disprove the axioms. They must be accepted for the rest of mathematics to make sense. You can't do anything else in math without these basic assumptions.

 

With religion and spiritual discussions, the same things apply. However, the entire discussion here revolve around the validity of the basic axioms. The notion of "God" is what is being discussed. People like Sasun take the definition of God as a given and go on from there to build an entire belief system. I have been questioning that basic definition and I claim it is too broad, too generic, too vague, and basically, entirely useless.

 

Does this make what I have been saying clear?

[DominO123]

Mathematics is based on a set of very clearly defined set of axioms. For example, these are some of the basic Euler postulates:

 

* Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.

* If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

* If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.

* Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.

* The whole is greater than the part.

* It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

* It is possible to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line

 

You can not prove or disprove the axioms. They must be accepted for the rest of mathematics to make sense. You can't do anything else in math without these basic assumptions.

 

With religion and spiritual discussions, the same things apply. However, the entire discussion here revolve around the validity of the basic axioms. The notion of "God" is what is being discussed. People like Sasun take the definition of God as a given and go on from there to build an entire belief system. I have been questioning that basic definition and I claim it is too broad, too generic, too vague, and basically, entirely useless.

 

Does this make what I have been saying clear?

 

Sip, they can be demonstrated(those mathematical axioms) from other axioms too.

 

What I've been trying to say is that the whole hypotheses confirmation is made possible with the handling of numbers, formulas etc., which are abstraits, which means we confirm things by using a tool that is metaphysical by itself.

Edited December 10, 2005 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

Beauty is a subjective term used to describe certain desirable qualities. For a flower, the aroma, the color, texture, and the visual appeal of it is generally considered "beautiful". A flower is beautiful because there exist other things that are not beautiful (for relative comparison). So beauty in and of itself does not exist. Beauty only apprears when there is ugliness. I think we have had numerous threads in the past where this topic has been discussed.

 

So this is another reason why the definition of "God" and "Devil" are rather arbitrary. Everything good is grouped together under the label of "God", while everything bad is often grouped together under the label of "evil" ... while neither could exist without the other.

 

EXACTLY!!! My belief of a perfect god not being self-aware in part is supported by the fact that a perfect entity can not be self aware, because the system has to have "levels of perfectness" (less perfect, middle perfect, more perfect etc...) it needs a range in which it is contained. If I were to be perfect, and that you were to be perfect, we would be identical, my identity could not exist. Not only this, every aspects of me, that produce the me, should all be perfect too, which meens they will have to be identical one from the other... so each can not have their own identity so that they could interconnect and creat my self-awarness.

 

If a perfect god exist, it just is not self-aware, it can not be self aware..., which means, if a self-aware god exist, it is not perfect.

[Sasun]

The notion of "God" is what is being discussed. People like Sasun take the definition of God as a given and go on from there to build an entire belief system. I have been questioning that basic definition and I claim it is too broad, too generic, too vague, and basically, entirely useless.

 

Does this make what I have been saying clear?

Sip, in that case before asking the question "What evidence do you have that God exists?" you should first ask "What is the definition of God that you use?", or "What is God?". Basically, from your point of view, you are asking me the question "What evidence do you have that X exists?". In that case I am unable to give any answer because you are giving me one equation with two unknowns. From my point of view, God means a specific thing. Until and unless you make up your mind of what God at least in theory means to you you cannot ask for evidence for that.

The topic of God is objectively broad. I have many evidences that the way I understand God exists and is a living reality. This understanding of God only keeps increasing and clarifying to me. Some things that I have assumed become no longer valid, however the basic definitions of God remain alwasy valid. It is a learning process, but never a blind faith. Likewise, I have inner experiences that prayer and meditation both work, because I have evidence in my personal life. You dont' have, but you are not in a position to reject my experiences. But you are in a position to repeat spiritual practices and have your own inner experiences.

[Takoush]

I have inner experiences that prayer and meditation both work, because I have evidence in my personal life. You don't have, but you are not in a position to reject my experiences. But you are in a position to repeat spiritual practices and have your own inner experiences.

Սասուն:

 

Շատ ճիշդ մեկնաբանութիւն է ըրածդ հոս, եւ նաեւ ճիշդ կը խոսիս:

Edited December 10, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[Sip]

Likewise, I have inner experiences that prayer and meditation both work, because I have evidence in my personal life. You dont' have, but you are not in a position to reject my experiences. But you are in a position to repeat spiritual practices and have your own inner experiences.

 

I have no doubt that prayer and meditation "work". But in my experience, many people have unreasonable expectations from what prayer and meditation can do and their reasons for doing so. I often find it extremely hillarious that people ask other people to pray for some random person to get well or to pull through some hardship. That is a false expectation ... what it does do however is make the person asking for the prayers to somehow feel better and have a more positive outlook. THAT is what makes for positive change, NOT the prayer itself.

 

Similarly, an internal prayer (of a self) or meditation to feel more at ease, more at peace, etc, is perfectly valid in my opinion. Again, not because of the prayer itself, but the impact it has on those who believe it is going to help them somehow.

 

What I categorically object to is most people's reasons for prayer. They pray because they expect whoever is listening to their prayer to do something for them (often God). But there is no one listening to the prayer other than yourself. It's like convincing ones self of something. You are sick, you tell yourself you are going to get better, and you get better. This I have experienced myself and I don't doubt we have a lot of potential of doing things that often we don't realize.

 

But again, I absolutely reject the notion that many claim there is some supernatural being listening and answering prayers. That's like saying God turns on the light when you flip the switch on the wall. So basically, my objection to prayer in most cases is the reasons for which people do it.

 

On a related note, it's great that someone donates money to the needy. But at the same time, it is rather disturbing if they do it because of tax breaks or personal wish to go to Heaven. The actions are good, but the reasoning behind them is WHACK.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Sip

[Takoush]

it's great that someone donates money to the needy. But at the same time, it is rather disturbing if they do it because of tax breaks or personal wish to go to Heaven. The actions are good, but the reasoning behind them is WHACK.

There Sipan I am with your thinking here. I get disturbed also when people do good deeds to others just to get something out of it:

 

. Tax breaks, or

 

. A sure way to go to heavan.

 

I say for crying out loud, if you want to do good, do good because your heart's in it and you want to help people for being kind yourself and not because you're getting something or anything out of it. It then becomes disgraceful and not so kind.

[Sip]

Wooo hooo we agree

[Takoush]

You're funny.