I can prove God exists

[numinus]

I see a difference between attempting to attain a state of perfect non-physical perception, the way Zen Buddhists do, and being forced into a state of total non-perception, which is what I'm talking about. Zen Buddhists are attempting to "observe" their true nature by watching their own thoughts and feelings without interference. What I'm talking about is the idea of total, complete nothing. Zero perception. Zero thought. Zero existence.

Admittedly I know little about Zen Buddhism so I could be totally off-base here, and there's no sense in starting another debate in this thread (which already holds several), so if I'm wrong here set me straight and we'll march on forward.

You have strayed away from the point.

The premise in all buddhist traditions is that perception is an illusion. Non-perception is the goal here.

 

[numinus]

The question you should be asking is why they accept duality to begin with

Why do they accept it? Because its an easy answer. Look, the body is not going anywhere, but the mind of that person has gone. Wouldn't it be convinient if they can diverge at death, and the mind can go somewhere else...

You mean it is easier to employ your reasoning faculty than to simply believe only what you see?

And what about mathematics, hmmm?

Do you suggest for one to count up to infinity before one can assert that the set of real numbers is infinite and uncountable set?

The mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.

And while you're at it, can you imagine your own existence without this duality? It is as indispensable in the way we think and behave as causality


Ask Aristotle.

I can imagine my existence without duality, because until my soul leaves my body, there isn't any real duality as far as I'm concerned.

Are you telling me you go about your life without any notion of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and fallacy, love and hate, etc.?

 

[9sublime]

You mean it is easier to employ your reasoning faculty than to simply believe only what you see?

yes, sometimes it is.

And what about mathematics, hmmm?

Do you suggest for one to count up to infinity before one can assert that the set of real numbers is infinite and uncountable set?

What the heck has this got to do with duality? I like to think I have a basic grasp of philiosophy and moral ethics, but you regularly loose me.

Humans, if they don't like what they see, invent something else to make it better, especially if there are gaps in it too.

Someone dies, they like the concept of duality, and the mind going somewhere else.

The mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.

We may well do, but it doesn't mean that believing in God is any more valid does it?


Are you telling me you go about your life without any notion of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and fallacy, love and hate, etc.?

No, of course I do, and once again this was not what I was saying. I am saying that duality, until death, means nothing.

I get my morals from the society in which I live in and my upbringing predominantl, like everyone else, and also through the experiences I have and the people I meet and listen to.

 

[vyo476]

You have strayed away from the point.

The premise in all buddhist traditions is that perception is an illusion. Non-perception is the goal here.

But not non-thought. I suppose it would be physically possible to dull all of a person's senses, thus entering them into a state of "non-perception." But can you imagine a state of non-perception and non-thought? Try it. Try to imagine your own complete inability to think ever again.

 

[vyo476]

Defense mechanisms are not functions of rational thought. Often times, they are not even functions of conscious thought.

Very true.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, is a formal philosophical inquiry that employs the same RULES OF LOGIC as in all the other branches of philosophy, the natural sciences included. Metaphysics differ with any other form human inquiry merely in premise and scope.

So you're hot for metaphysics. I think we already got that.

Personally, I prefer psychology and sociology for explaining human behavior.

Granted, for arguments sake, that metaphysical inquiry derives from some defense mechanism inherent in human organisms, then how are other forms of inquiry different, eh? Is it possible that all are defense mechanisms as well, having no relation whatsoever, to some immutable truth or principle?

The difference comes in with the motivating factor. While many branches of science are motivated by curiosity and a desire to explore the unknown, the religious drive is motivated by fear of the unknown and the desire for a simple, clear-cut answer, regardless of methodology.

If you have discovered the existence of God through motivation of curiosity and along the lines of the scientific method, not only do I expect you to take us step-by-step through the discovery process and present us with a conclusion, I'll be expecting your article on the subject in any number of peer-reviewed journals. No doubt a discovery of that magnitude would warrant a spot in one of those journals.

 

[numinus]

yes, sometimes it is.

No, it is not.

Seeing merely requires one's senses.

Rational thought requires both the senses and some rudimentary grasp of causation.

What the heck has this got to do with duality? I like to think I have a basic grasp of philiosophy and moral ethics, but you regularly loose me.

Physical phenomena are ALWAYS explainable through mathematics. That is the reason why the laws of physics are demonstrated through mathematical equations. Pure mathematics is NOT an EMPIRICAL form of inquiry. It exists in the world of IDEAS.

So, you do not consider this a DUALITY in all things material, hmmm?

Humans, if they don't like what they see, invent something else to make it better, especially if there are gaps in it too.

Someone dies, they like the concept of duality, and the mind going somewhere else.

The validity of an idea, especially one that is abstract, rests on its LOGIC.

No, of course I do, and once again this was not what I was saying. I am saying that duality, until death, means nothing.

I get my morals from the society in which I live in and my upbringing predominantl, like everyone else, and also through the experiences I have and the people I meet and listen to.

And society, like everything, has an inherent DUALITY.

So, whether you like it or not, you simply cannot dismiss duality. Either it operates in everything, or it not at all.

 

[numinus]

Very true.

Nice to see you admit truth for a change.

So you're hot for metaphysics. I think we already got that.

Any one who is inclined to believe the conclusions of science necessarily adheres to a metaphysical model. It is an inquiry into the nature of existence - what one can say to be immutably true.

All laws of the natural sciences are couched as IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES.

Personally, I prefer psychology and sociology for explaining human behavior.

Which are, themselves, a form of inquiry within a specific metaphysical model.

The difference comes in with the motivating factor. While many branches of science are motivated by curiosity and a desire to explore the unknown, the religious drive is motivated by fear of the unknown and the desire for a simple, clear-cut answer, regardless of methodology.

No.

Notice how the founder of the major religions today started out from a period of extreme meditation.

The truth of any principle does not rest on the motivations of those who try to discern them. Ultimately, logic prevails over ignorance.

If you have discovered the existence of God through motivation of curiosity and along the lines of the scientific method, not only do I expect you to take us step-by-step through the discovery process and present us with a conclusion, I'll be expecting your article on the subject in any number of peer-reviewed journals. No doubt a discovery of that magnitude would warrant a spot in one of those journals.

The cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, etc. Haven't I posted it before?

 

[9sublime]

Seeing merely requires one's senses.

Rational thought requires both the senses and some rudimentary grasp of causation.

But the fact that humans cannot see what happens to them after death causes them to invent something.

Physical phenomena are ALWAYS explainable through mathematics. That is the reason why the laws of physics are demonstrated through mathematical equations. Pure mathematics is NOT an EMPIRICAL form of inquiry. It exists in the world of IDEAS.

So, you do not consider this a DUALITY in all things material, hmmm?

I still fail to understand how this effects religion. I can look at pure mathmatics and see the logic and proof behind it. I can see the origin of the answer to the question, the way they came to the answer etc.

When I'm told to trust a 2,000 year old book about some bloke from 2,000 years ago about all things eternal, I wonder where he got his ideas from, and wether or not the book is logical, and wether or not it is all fabrication. And from there, I wonder if any man made religions have any proof.

I do not argue the existence of duality, I think it quite likely, but also quite
unlikeley

The validity of an idea, especially one that is abstract, rests on its LOGIC.

Yes. Well, I had a vision last night from God. He said we should all eat cabbage 3 times a day. I convince my children of this nonsense, wheres the logic that this rests on?


And society, like everything, has an inherent DUALITY.

So, whether you like it or not, you simply cannot dismiss duality. Either it operates in everything, or it not at all.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it had inheret duality, but only because it is a convinient answer.

 

[r0beph]

Numunus..

I refuse to read your posts until you learn to keep that itchy ass pinky of yours away from the return key. STOP USING SO MANY DAMN SPACES IT IS DRIVING ME CLEARLY OVER THE EDGE.... STOP STOP STOP...


Invest/numinus, I want replies to my previous posts...the long ones, on pages 22/23 I do think... somewhere around there...

 

[vyo476]

Nice to see you admit truth for a change.

Nice to see you being arrogant for a change. Woops, that's not a change.

Any one who is inclined to believe the conclusions of science necessarily adheres to a metaphysical model. It is an inquiry into the nature of existence - what one can say to be immutably true.

All laws of the natural sciences are couched as IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES.

Science is an empirical and experimental study of data. Philosophy is not. If you'll allow a little personification here, metaphysics may classify or set models for science all it wants, and science won't care.

No.

Notice how the founder of the major religions today started out from a period of extreme meditation.

Plenty of "extreme meditation" has gone on throughout the world, and yet those people don't get their own religions. Religion must have an element of appeal in order to stick. When it explains away humanity's natural inborn fears about death, it has appeal.

The truth of any principle does not rest on the motivations of those who try to discern them. Ultimately, logic prevails over ignorance.

You never studied history, did you?

The cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, etc. Haven't I posted it before?

I guess I must have missed them. I'm crying on the inside, really.

 

[numinus]

But the fact that humans cannot see what happens to them after death causes them to invent something.

Hence the infinity analogy. You need not count to infinity to know that whatever number you come up with, you can simply add 1 to it, indefinitely.

The same reasoning is employed in every facet of life. People can discern these principles simply because the mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.

I still fail to understand how this effects religion. I can look at pure mathmatics and see the logic and proof behind it. I can see the origin of the answer to the question, the way they came to the answer etc.

There is the physical world and there is the ideal world - both existing as indispensable parts of the same reality.

And if one can observe this duality in nature, then there is no reason for it not to exist within one's self.

Do you now get it?

When I'm told to trust a 2,000 year old book about some bloke from 2,000 years ago about all things eternal, I wonder where he got his ideas from, and wether or not the book is logical, and wether or not it is all fabrication. And from there, I wonder if any man made religions have any proof.

So, it is either all true or all fabrication. You do not give any room for the possibility of it being somewhere in the middle? You do not give any room for the possibility of truth existing in allegorical form - through the subjective eyes of the observer? You do not give room for the possibility of some fundamental knowledge wrapped in a tale that is meant to entertain as well as teach?

Only sometime ago, people thought that the trojan war, or king arthur's camelot was all myth. Now, there are archeaological evidence to support the notion that these tales were based on some factual person, place or event - minus the obvious garnishing that is inevitable in any oral tradition.

I do not argue the existence of duality, I think it quite likely, but also quite
unlikeley

Likely and unlikely would depend on the logic to be found in its proof.

Yes. Well, I had a vision last night from God. He said we should all eat cabbage 3 times a day. I convince my children of this nonsense, wheres the logic that this rests on?

Cabbage is good for you.

Yes, it had inheret duality, but only because it is a convinient answer.

E=mc^2 is a scientific statement of universal duality.

So is the wave-particle theory of light.

So is the interaction between the cosmological tendencies of gravity and lambda.

So is the theoretical concept of a space-time singularity.

So is the matter-anti matter creation-annihilation.

So is the relationship of determinism and chaos.

So is the conservation of matter, energy and momentum.

And so on, and on, and on.....

 

[numinus]

Numunus..

I refuse to read your posts until you learn to keep that itchy ass pinky of yours away from the return key. STOP USING SO MANY DAMN SPACES IT IS DRIVING ME CLEARLY OVER THE EDGE.... STOP STOP STOP...


Invest/numinus, I want replies to my previous posts...the long ones, on pages 22/23 I do think... somewhere around there...

Was it addressed to me?

 

[numinus]

Nice to see you being arrogant for a change. Woops, that's not a change.

Arrogant comes from the latin word which means to claim for one's self. When I claim truth in behalf of my arguments, then, you may say I am arrogant.

Science is an empirical and experimental study of data.

What are you waffling about?

One conducts scientific experiments because physical phenomena are repeatable. Physical phenomena are repeatable because of the premise that MATERIAL PHENOMENA HAVE ONLY MATERIAL CAUSES.

The last statement is the metaphysical premise of A MATERIALIST CONCEPTION. There is no logical proof that it is immutably true.

Philosophy is not.

Not necessarily. Philosophy can be used as a tool for purely rational inquiries.

Science is merely a branch of philosophy - not its anti-thesis.

If you'll allow a little personification here, metaphysics may classify or set models for science all it wants, and science won't care.

Materialism is a philosophical school of thought. Philosophy is an indispensable part of the natural sciences - which was called natural philosophy, then.

Plenty of "extreme meditation" has gone on throughout the world, and yet those people don't get their own religions.

Depends what they are meditating about.

Religion must have an element of appeal in order to stick. When it explains away humanity's natural inborn fears about death, it has appeal.

Appeal can just as easily come from a logical conception.

You never studied history, did you?

Its a required course in college. And history proves me right all the time.

I guess I must have missed them. I'm crying on the inside, really.

You did ask, didn't you?

 

[9sublime]

Hence the infinity analogy. You need not count to infinity to know that whatever number you come up with, you can simply add 1 to it, indefinitely.

The same reasoning is employed in every facet of life. People can discern these principles simply because the mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.

I don't see what this has to do with wether or not duality exists. Well done, you know the ontological argument. Maximal greatness can only be given to God. Anything else can always become more great.

My original point was that organized religions are man made and are all relativley similair because as man has made the religions, he has common themes which mankind likes to see in their belief about the afterlife.

However, we seem to have diverged to proving duality in order to prove this, so let us continue.

Thinking up to infinity may prove the mind has the ability to think abstractly, but it doesn't mean that we have duality, and it certainly doesnt mean that a God created us and that the soul side of the duality goes to heaven.

There is the physical world and there is the ideal world - both existing as indispensable parts of the same reality.

And if one can observe this duality in nature, then there is no reason for it not to exist within one's self.

Do you now get it?

Platos theory of forms then?

Do I observe this in nature? When I see a beautiful sunset, do I think to myself, oh, it could be more beautiful in the ideal world. Maybe. But that doesn't guarantee the other world really exists, just because I can imagine it.

I find Kant far more appealing than Anslem and Descartes, who you obviously seem to follow.

I will believe in God when we find some proof. I believe that the mind can think abstractly because the human mind has come up with abstract thoughts all the time, which is proof enough to me.

Duality, as in a body and mind division, cannot be proved, but you can see an metaphysical divison between them which is obvious through the fact that we can think abstractly, and above our basic instincts.

But believing that this duality came from God is irrational.

Believing in God is a priori, and any argument for his existence is based on the unquestioned truth that he exists (or his existence in neccessary for duality). If you do not take it as a given truth that he exists, then you find that logic goes out of the window.
Pure maths has a posteriori, because it has logic to it, and it is clear how the mathmatician got from each step to the next, even if the maths itself is impossible. The fundamental belief in God doesn't have any proof, and the posteriori arguments for his existence can only be based on the priori that he exists in the first place.

So, it is either all true or all fabrication. You do not give any room for the possibility of it being somewhere in the middle? You do not give any room for the possibility of truth existing in allegorical form - through the subjective eyes of the observer? You do not give room for the possibility of some fundamental knowledge wrapped in a tale that is meant to entertain as well as teach?

So you are admitting that religion is simply a lie, wrapped around the truth? Well wont this truth be universal, and so all religions are similiar, but with an outer coating of bollocks?

Only sometime ago, people thought that the trojan war, or king arthur's camelot was all myth. Now, there are archeaological evidence to support the notion that these tales were based on some factual person, place or event - minus the obvious garnishing that is inevitable in any oral tradition.

Yes, but this doesnt prove that religions are all similiar because man likes to make up something which is attractive to him, and round the world, similair themes such as eternal life after death, and a loving creator, are universally attractive.

Likely and unlikely would depend on the logic to be found in its proof.

Yes, and I have yet to be convinced of a logical argument by any of the great philiosophers as to Gods existence.

Cabbage is good for you.

Indeed it is.

E=mc^2 is a scientific statement of universal duality.

So is the wave-particle theory of light.

So is the interaction between the cosmological tendencies of gravity and lambda.

So is the theoretical concept of a space-time singularity.

So is the matter-anti matter creation-annihilation.

So is the relationship of determinism and chaos.

So is the conservation of matter, energy and momentum.

And so on, and on, and on.....

I don't have a further education in maths or physics, but I do have a small amount of further education in philiosophy. As a result, you've lost me. Humour me, and tell me how science, with all its logic and proof, can prove the priori that Gods existence is a given.

 

[r0beph]

Was it addressed to me?

yes, stop with the newlines...it deserve bannage if it doesn't cease...It makes it a real headache to try and read your posts.