Well that's a wild theory. But according to it there should be Martians right now — khaled
But what I'm suggesting is that the start of the universe wasn't autonomous. Would you call the movement of the earth around the sun autonomous? I wouldn't. And besides even if we give that the first cause of existence was intelligent that doesn't mean it's conscious or that it still exists now. — khaled
Aha! I meet someone who understands what I am trying share, probably better than I do. :smile: If I had a brain I would be on a Buddhist forum, where I might actually learn something.
Yes, so long as one feels one has "The Answer", whether theist or atheist, there is really no need for an investigation, so the process degrades in to a competitive ideological shouting match.
I've been attempting, however ineptly, to pull the rug out from under the God debate so that the fantasy answer machine is destroyed. What makes this rather difficult is that many or most speaking to this subject are not actually interested in the God debate at all, but rather in the competitive shouting match experience which can be launched from it.
Anyway, should one succeed in liberating oneself from the God debate, if all the unproven and unprovable authorities are destroyed and discarded, one is left with nothing, no ground to stand on, no answer, or even any methodology which might promise an eventual answer.
At first, such an outcome may sound like a distressing, depressing failure. Isn't this opposite of what we were reaching for???
On the surface, yes, it is. But just underneath the surface the failure of the God debate is leading us towards the experience of unity that we most seek. That is, maybe the failure is not really a failure after all?
We feel isolated, separate, alone, fearful, and sometimes angry about this because we don't know how to escape. We try to think our way out of the trap, perhaps through religion, perhaps through reason, or something else, anything. And so we build a mountain of fantasy knowings and cling to it fiercely, protecting it from all enemies.
But what is hopefully eventually given to all who are patient and serious is the realization that it is thought itself which is generating this experience of isolation and separation, and the fear which springs from it. Once one has seen this it becomes obvious that no philosophy or ideology can cure the hunger we feel, because every one of them is made of thought.
But the emptiness can heal the wound. Not because it's some magic mystery medicine, but simply because it's not thought, it's not a conceptual machine which depends entirely on the processes of division. It's not that logical to assume one can reach the experience of unity via a device whose specific purpose is to divide reality in to conceptual parts.
I have little idea how this might relate to Buddhism, because as may have long been obvious, I'm not well read. Well, that is, I don't read many books.
Why settle for second hand information about the real world when the real world is all around us in every moment of our lives, entirely willing to be read directly? If Jesus knocked on our front door would we talk to him directly, or close the door and go read a book about Jesus instead? The answer is just common sense, right?
Regrettably, members are now reading what somebody says about the reality of the human condition, the very flawed methodology I just got done debunking. And I'm helping them do it. No wonder my application for guru status was denied!! :smile:
Blah, blah, blah to the power of ten. Oh well, the embarrassing irony is helping build my sense of humor. :smile: — Jake
The “god question” is a funny one. On one hand, it might be THE QUESTION. On the other, it can easily produce so many more words, theories, polemics, factions. — 0 thru 9
We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. — Jake
Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely. — Jake
If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing.
What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world. — Frank Apisa
Jake
1.4k
What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world. — Frank Apisa
What we listen to is typically the noise going round and round in our brains. That is, the symbolic world. And that's where the God debate is looking for God, in the symbolic world. We already know that the idea of God exists, so why are we still looking in the symbolic realm? — Jake
This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).
...
We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.
If our approach is to be reality based we might remember that the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing. — Jake
Also, you can't flippantly apply an infinitesimal understanding of cause and effect to events in the universe and beyond it for which there's no method of quantitative or qualitative exploration apart from complex abstract symbolism which no one outside a small number of specialists understands. — whollyrolling
You have been discussing nothing but "the axiom of cause and effect", you've just recently added the word "axiom" to the only thing you ever discuss — whollyrolling
Thanks for the reply. Would not disagree. A small quibble I might have is about the words “the real world”. This would seem to open up the question of what is real, what is really real, etc. and be distracting. Maybe I would use the phrase “inner experience” or “personal perception”.First, what's really being asked is not whether the idea of god exists, for it obviously does. To be more precise, the question is "does a god exist in the real world?"
This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).
It's as if you asked if your shoes are in the bedroom and I replied, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage." Nonsensical.
If we can set aside the God debate (words, theories, polemics, factions etc) then all that's left is looking in the real world.
The atheists suggest observation of reality as the appropriate method, and I agree. But not observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions, but rather observation pursued for it's own value. Theories and conclusions just take us back in to the same old failed game.
We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.
If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing. — Jake
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.