I didn't point to non-dual being. I pointed to non-duality. Being is relative to not being and a duality. — praxis
how do you distinguish the being of numbers and napolean as nonexistent from the being of existing beings? What makes a being exist? — Blue Lux
There are types of beings?
What makes something exist?
Are there types of existences?
Is the not a whole, universal here?
We have a non-sensorial property that allows us to distinguish between dream and non-dream, between hallucination and non-hallucination. — Mariner
I don’t know if you really responded to S in that, as far as I can tell so far, there’s no meaningful difference between a “transcendent Deity” and, say, the Eastern concept of emptiness. An atheist can believe in emptiness. — praxis
What you - not just you - are loosing sight of here is the understanding that there are things, the very knowledge of which are transformative. Meaning that, ‘worldly beings’ [that includes just about everyone] actually don’t know what is real at all, due to inherent un-wisdom. So the point of spiritual discipline is to ‘see things as they truly are’. And this is even preserved in scientific method, with the caveat that modern science is generally limited to what is quantifiable. Whereas, in the traditions of sapiential philosophy, you will encounter an approach which encompasses the domain of quality.
In any case, in any of the traditional schools of wisdom, there is an understanding that the mind has to clear itself of obstructions and hindrances so as to see the true ‘object of knowledge’. You will find that in Greek, Indian, Chinese and Semitic philosophies. But we have lost sight of that, for complex historical reasons, the main one being the reduction of everything to language and symbolic abstractions. The original discipline was always aimed at ‘meta-noia’ which mean ‘transformation of perception’. And if you understand that, it puts the whole question in a different perspective.
What you - again not just you - are caught up in, is the Enlightenment reaction against ecclesiastical religion. That is obviously a broad historical movement which has had vast consequences that are still all unfolding.
Regarding your question about the meaningful differences - I observed some time back, some debates between two philosophers you might call ‘classical theists’ - namely, Ed Feser [Catholic] and D B Hart [Orthodox] and some of the ID proponents. And both of them were accused of being atheist, or being near to atheist, in some basic way. But it’s precisely because they both understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity. Whereas, they argue, the ID advocates tend to loose sight of that or to depict ‘being’ as ‘a being’ - a super-engineer, in effect, which is pretty much the kind of God that Dawkins vituperates against. — Wayfarer
It can be argued that both faith and reason can lead to the same place if followed far enough. Perhaps what creates the supposedly huge gap between theism and atheism is that most of us only follow our chosen path a short way down the trail, and then we stop, and build a fort. — Jake
Yes, that can be argued, but that doesn't seem to address my point. — S
By a meaningful difference, I simply meant that the two positions should be mutually exclusive. — S
That is, I shouldn't be able to be both an atheist and a theist in the same sense. — S
Fort Agnostic, featuring high walls, a lovely moat, and a tall tower upon which to look down on the ignorant masses — praxis
Husserl would disagree with you. — Blue Lux
We have a non-sensorial property that allows us to distinguish between dream and non-dream, between hallucination and non-hallucination. — Mariner
... humans are made of thought, a highly dualistic electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of conceptual division. — Jake
What is it that makes an electro-chemical information medium dualistic? Is, for example, a mechanical recycling device that separates bottles from cans dualistic? — praxis
The gist of much of it seems to be that you view me as though I am trapped inside Plato's cave. You think that I don't have sight of this "knowledge" which you say is "transformative", and that I don't know what's real "at all". I'm not of a "spiritual" mindset, and don't "see things as they truly are". — S
As for the last paragraph, which is more on point, though still vague, you say that you've seen a video in which there are a couple of guys who "understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity". If you're able to "recognise" that, then does that mean that you also think that you understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity? If so, I have one simple request. Please answer the following questions. What is this meaning? What is the transcendent nature of Deity? How have you come upon this knowledge? Why is this meaning "the real" meaning? — S
I associate "a being" with an entity, but again, it seems that certain people don't accept that with regards to God, because they treat God as special. But, of course, just because you might want to set some notion apart as special, that doesn't mean that it's right or true or reasonable or justified or that it makes any sense to do so. — S
The point is that you’re apparently confusing thought or information processing with dualism or something that ‘operates by a process of division’. We’re not continuously self-conscious, nor is self-consciousness necessary for information processing.Dualism is only an issue because of our self concept, or rather, our attachment to the concept. — praxis
God is a not a being among beings, but the very Being of beings. To deny God, then, is not like denying an orbiting teapot; it is more like denying Being itself. Or it is more like denying truth itself as opposed to denying that a particular proposition is true.
And the widely-bruited 'death of God?' It is an 'event' of rather more significance than the discovery that there is no celestial teapot (or Santa Claus, or . . . ) after all. — Bill Vallicella [from Wayfarer's link]
...what makes the experience of something not real? — Blue Lux
And, I guess the bigger question is, is a thought existent? Does an abstract or phenomenal object exist? Is there a being of such an object? — Blue Lux
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.