Supporting arguments for Spiritual Reality

**really** · 11-18-2009 01:50 PM

I thought I'd create a thread to address the deeper problems that skeptics and atheists have with the validity of in spiritual realities: the Divine, Buddha, God, etc. Most of the points were taken from "10 Questions for an Intelligent Christian", specifically on p.6, where I left off. So below is a summary of the problems, which would have otherwise been far off-topic if addressed in the aforementioned thread.

Classically, spiritual reality as reported by the great enlightened teachers or Avatars have reported it the same: As the Divine Truth, Enlightenment, Nirvana, Bliss, etc. All these terms are synonymous in essence; a direct revelation of what is typically known as "God". I will only briefly mention the mystics, but I think all who are questioning spirituality should know about them. Let's look at some of the issues that people who are not spiritually oriented may deal with; those people who hold motivations in other domains of the academic world.

Here's a bit more elaboration, from a past R/S thread, A Crossroads:

Spoiler for Spirituality of the great religions:

Originally Posted by really

At the very core, beyond the rituals, ceremonies and dates, is the spiritual essence. The most important part of the religion is its foundation; the prophets, the Self-Realized, Lord Krishna, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, etc. The spiritual connections are all based upon the illumination of the Divine Reality, called Brahman, Enlightenment, Self Realization, The Supreme, Nirvana, Heaven, Salvation (Salvation is not full Realization, however) etc. Those who seek this, by whatever name or teacher, sometimes "via the mind" are called mystics. Sri Ramana Maharshi is a famous mystic, who taught about the "Self" and "Self-inquiry", though he was a Hindu devotee.

I hope you can see the connections below, just from the list of quotes; there is a brilliant consistency. I think the context in which they're stated is already self-evident as for those seeking the Ultimate Reality or Salvation, as teachings and preachings. However, if you still doubt what I am saying, there is no harm exposing yourself to more material. It is then inevitable to see more connections. Here is but a few:

Spoiler for Buddha/Buddhism:

Spoiler for Sri Krishna (Bhagavad Gita)/Vedanta::

Spoiler for Spoiler for Jesus/Christianity::

Spoiler for Sri Ramana Maharshi/Advaita Vedanta::

What if one is skeptical about all of this - what if one would rather "prove the existence" of God or Divine Reality, or wonder why they should believe in what appears to be an unfalsifiable "claim"?

We are certain because it is the eternal Truth to which we search for, so let's examine how it is the eternal Truth. Some elaboration will be posted on the spiritual paradigm, which is radically different than the ordinary realm of science and perception. Again, in particular, the style of this post will be suited for skeptics, atheists and intellectuals in general, but of course not limited to them.

Category Error and Divine Reality

One of the main problems to understand, especially for skeptics, is the spiritual paradigm is not explicit, logical or comprehensible in typical domains of science, or within the Newtonian paradigm of causality (and objectivity, etc). More importantly, "why" this is the case. This may bring up conflict in that spirituality seems founded on vague, undefined, "magical" or even supernatural descriptions. Consequently the belief system might be disregarded or passed of as nonsense before further examination. Worse, it could be seen as the exact opposite of what it represents; typically degraded with childish, exaggerated comparisons including the belief in fairies of flying spaghetti monsters, each of which completely ignore the importance of spiritual context.

The importance of Truth is detailed here, but I cannot "prove" the Truth and it follows that languaging is a profound limitation. If anything, the closest areas of studies to the Divine are epistemology, ontology and theology. Typically, we can elaborate on the validity of the "truth" of something by coherence, correspondence and through pragmatism. However, correspondence is limited as the Divine Truth denies ordinary ideas or perceptions, which would otherwise seem true. At first, the concept of Divine Truth also seems incoherent in that it is Absolute and doesn't have any meaning with regard to leading to new bodies of knowledge. Thirdly, pragmatism holds that the Divine is only True to those who have faith, for example, yet many mystics would agree that the Divine exists whether or not one believes in it or wishes to discover it. Again, this brings up the emphasis on the nature of the Absolute Truth.

Divine Reality concerns the Absolute Truth, for it is the Source and Creator of all Existence: All that has been; is now, and forever shall ever be, and beyond. If the Truth already exists everywhere without a single word or thought, what is the purpose of proof? One might say something like "so I have a reason to believe in it", but further examine that: "What reason do I need?" Perhaps one would say this is unfalsifiable, but is it really a claim, or simply a description of the self-evident? Nothing has been "imagined" or "made up" on a whim; there is consistency that every mystic/true spiritual teacher will essentially report the same finding. Everybody who has a clear mind will honestly know that "the meaning of life" or "the Truth of everything" is not intellectual. It is spiritual.

Another way to understand the distinction is through different layers. Spiritual concepts that are believed to be supernatural may also be categorized as redundant or as a "further fact", when in practice and understanding, they're neither. The crux of the problem is again really concerning the definition of Truth, which at first may seem obscure and/or self-fulfilling. Below are some of the fundamental, simplified paradigms of Reality:

Objective certainty:
- factual; related to content of mind and the world.
- transitory
- provable / linear; verifiable through demonstration / specifics / logic
- exists within the mentalized or scientific framework
- E.g. science, logical thinking, empirical studies, etc.
- "It seems reasonable that straight lines are not curved. That is factual and logical."

Subjective perceptions:
- relatively true, intrinsic to point of view, experience and qualia
- transitory
- improvable; verifiable through experience
- exists in nature of experience
- E.g. memory, positionality / opinion, perspectives, beliefs, state of mind, unconscious beliefs, etc.
- "All people that kill others are bad people, but that's just how I might perceive it at the moment."

Pure Subjectivity / Divine Reality (Please note capitalized letters):
- universally True, innate to Context of mind, Absolute Truth
- intrinsic to existence / subjectivity, a priori to all experience
- eternal
- improvable / non-linear; verifiable through revelation
- exists as Context of experience and beyond (Infinite)
- E.g. field of consciousness and existence, void, awareness, "light".
- "Directly knowing God is transcendental, wise and intuitive in comparison to what would otherwise seem objective, logical or describable."

Sometimes people argue that this "is subjective" and want to know how this is distinguishable from every other belief. Although it is true that spiritual reality is subjective, one would be naive and miss the point through this small observation, which seems to do more distracting than actually provide insight. One must realize that all Reality is subjective. While we can say there is an objective reality that only provides certainty, it is validated and granted meaning by a subjective context - what is so often ignored. Here, the infinite Context is what skeptics and atheists disbelieve in, yet without it nothing can exist. The vast majority of human kind are unaware of it, since their state of consciousness and mind inherently and instinctually identifies with objects and perceptions.

God is not imagined, He is beyond imagination

Some may say that there actually is no God, but the real God is "you" and that the belief in God is a only a perception. I am neither describing my perceptual mind nor a collective-consciousness, since both are subject to time and space. It is also somewhat ironic that somebody can believe that "the actual divine (supernatural) non-dual entity is YOUR SELF" (O'nus) , since I have pointed out the unity of God with the Self. Furthermore, with some familiarity, it'd be known that there is no "your" or "you" in pure non-duality, as they directly relate to the separate egoic entity, along with what most people define as the "self".

I do not neglect that my mind has conceptualized God; I neglect that my mind has authority over God. Also, the revelation of God immanent is what holds the authority of the experience, not my body/mind; I do not claim that revelation either. Jesus Christ did not magically come to the logical conclusion that "the Father is in him" but it came to him through knowledge and revelation; not through that which his mind created but through which his mind was created. Again, there is the difference between wisdom and the minds ways of reasoning.

Why should I choose to believe in this? This is supernatural, improvable and unfalsifiable, etc.

First of all, I am not forcing anyone to believe in any of this. I am simply doing my best to explain what so often seems to be misleading. I believe I have broken through an inner critical barrier, and wish to share insight.

I'd consider that this is not all that it seems. At some point one has to see that the Truth of existence will not be found through any rationalization, proving, thinking or conceptualizing. This is what the mind does; the mind and its content is this. However, the Infinite Context of Reality would render all of this useless. Ponder this deeply: Why does the Truth need to be conceptualized to know it? The Truth is, you ARE it already, and it is re-emphasized again when we are seeking the Truth of ourselves; our Real nature. When one seeks the Truth of all as it is, there is no conceptualization. Therefore, most of what I am explaining here is the limitation of reasoning more than anything else. Science and logic does not encompass all Reality, by nature.

If one's view is that "that is supernatural because I can't comprehend it", they're making a presumption of the information. If this doesn't make sense to others, it does not change the category of the information, but only to a relative stand-point. The problem lies in the perception, since it rested with him/her from the beginning. It requires yet more introspection, and if they're not open to it, they're not. This may be disappointing to the skeptic, since none of it follows as a logical or empirical fashion, for example. If one does not know who one is, does he say that "looking within" is supernatural, or could he just be afraid to go outside traditional reasoning?

People who are intrigued about this need to consider the real meaning of "faith", "devotion" and understand the limitations of the human intellect or ego. Having these understandings requires wisdom and and awareness, not proof or scientific papers. Nobody should generalize that everybody cannot believe it unless they experience it, or experience something that supports it, although we do know experience has the most influential effect. Accepting that as a given to any belief, let's move on to what is paradoxically not so obvious.

The problem could be in the question itself. "Why should I believe this.." Although truthfully, the person wants to find a reason to move into a new domain of life, the "reason" may be the barrier. One might find that, unconsciously, the person wants the "new paradigm" to satisfy the "old paradigm" when really it would actually replace it through transformation. The intellect is a block, here, and trying to understand something that is prior to understanding is impossible. There can only be understanding through very abstract concepts, and that does still lead to more intuitive thought processes.

In another sense, the question: "Why should I believe in God?" cannot be answered realistically. The real irony comes from understanding that "Why" is a question founded on mentalization and has no actual existence. As such there cannot be a "why" to anything, in the same way there is no "causes" in Reality. This is a common theme in Satsangs, e.g. Ramesh Baleskar says (paraphrased): "Nothing in existence is 'doing' anything. It's so stupid! So I don't tell anybody about it! It is soley the Will of God behind all occurrences; there is no do-er."

Thus, even the question of "Why" is redundant because it begs for an explanation or an answer - something only the mind can deal with. But Truth of God is not an explanation; it is the nature of Reality as it is. Conceptualization is dualistic, whereas the Truth is non-dualistic. "Why should I believe in this" begs for an arbitrary reason - of which everybody will find one that is relatively different, although in essence spiritual people generally have the same "reasons". Ultimately therefore, questions in the form of such logical format are akin to a dog chasing its tail. It may not help. What is needed is a radical paradigm shift; a shift in awareness, facilitated by devotion and meditation, etc. I doubt there is a mystic that does not agree that wisdom transcends rationality.

Revelation transcends the need or rationale for proof

Again, in what way is an Absolute Truth a fact at all, especially if it cannot be proven? One may go on to say "so it serves no discussion", but obviously that is beside the point. This topic does not ask for scientific journals and neither would providing them be significant enough through representation (for the average person, anyway). The purpose for spiritual investigation does not rest in scientific logic; the Truth intrinsically being devoid of concepts. Wouldn't you be rest assured you had nothing to think about or prove for it to be True? This is the importance of Context. A school of fish do not need to swim in a certain direction to demonstrate that they are underwater. The context is devoid of patterns - while the patterns and the fish are classified as the "content" of the water. The water is self-evident in order for the fish to even swim at all! The water is the context in which they swim, in this case. To better that analogy, let's assume that the water thinks it is the fish.

Divine Truth is not redundant, it is intrinsic to existence

Some may argue that Divine Reality is made up and is "magical" and therefore redundant to the beauty that exists. Familiarity would show that beauty and Divinity are the one and the same. Of course, neither are completely blacked-out by awareness, but they are definitely reduced significantly, depending on one's consciousness.

This similarity is also like the Source of existence is not redundant, but described as both innate to all existence, and transcendental to ordinary human consciousness. In that simple knowing, all doubts and fears can be transcended.

The Truth is Simple, not vague

How does one represent the Truth then? As God; as Self. Besides that, the real Self is what is not definable, and the importance rests in understanding that we are believing in what already exists and does never change. Most people have the problem of giving authority to the concept and not the self-evident. It is not an easy task to "grasp" because it is not about being "grasped." When you are asked to believe something you expect to grasp on the concept, but paradoxical fear arises when the concept lies with God. With some honest examination, one may see that defining the True Self just so one can believe in it is somewhat hypocritical, and sometimes may even feed the very mechanism that obscures it.

When Socrates said "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

That includes all ideas, beliefs, thoughts and supposed knowledge. They're temporary and somewhat pragmatic, depending on their purpose, however upon giving them up, one will still end up discovering God, because none of these are one's real Source of existence. I'd like to quote Huang Po, Zen master:

"If you can only rid yourselves of conceptual thought, you will have accomplished everything."

It is correlated in that Huang Po taught "The Way" to enlightenment - which is another word for Divine Reality, Divine Revelation and Self-Realization. Therefore, it can be synonymous with God in this sense.

I hope this makes a lot of sense, and there are many concepts and other arguments that analyze the nature Divinity or Reality, but here I have summarized the fundamental concepts. Simplicity is the key, yet it is infinitely more simpler than this.

**Scatterbrain** · 11-18-2009 04:30 PM

I just skimmed through the text, the argument seems to be fundamentally based on double think.

You paint subjective experience as unreliable, and then present "revelation", which is simply subjective experience that agrees with your beliefs, as the source of truth.

And in the end, you didn't even explain what the 'truth' is, you just played around with words without saying anything concrete. =|

**really** · 11-18-2009 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I just skimmed through the text, the argument seems to be fundamentally based on double think.

You paint subjective experience as unreliable, and then present "revelation", which is simply subjective experience that agrees with your beliefs, as the source of truth.

And in the end, you didn't even explain what the 'truth' is, you just played around with words without saying anything concrete. =|

Maybe you should then consider reading through it carefully. I'm pretty sure I addressed this already. Explain what truth is - What more do you want explained about it?

Edit: Can you elaborate on the "double-think"? Maybe quote something I said as well.

**mini0991** · 11-18-2009 07:12 PM

This can basically be summed up as a classical problem of interpretation.

There are given phenomona that occur that we do not immediately understand. There may come a day when we get coherent explanations for these things. But to say that such things are a result of "God" is erroneous; the more accurate thing to say is, "We don't know."

To expand upon my point. In another thread I mentioned the example of Carl Sagan and what his position on UFOs was. He believed that UFOs were neither aliens nor anything else immediately explainable. Essentially, an odd event was occuring all over the world and we had no explanation for it. But what basis do we have to say that UFOs are aliens, versus just saying that we don't know what they are? The mindset of an irrational person would say the more romanticized, ritzy, and cool-sounding "It's Aliens! They've come to deliever a message of hope!" and a rational person would go "Well, wait a minute. Instead of just saying they're aliens and going with that, just because we don't understand what's going on, can't we explore other scenarios first?"

The truth is, not a damn person really knows whether or not there is a God. You can go two roads from this point. You can have the mindset that such phenomona that occurs are "ghosts", "angels", "God", etc. Or, you can just say "I don't know what is happening," and not look like an idiot fifty years down the road when such phenomona is successfully explained scientifically.

Originally, women with diseases such as epilepsy were burned at the stake under the assumption that they were possessed witches. Then, things couldn't be explained, but rather than saying she has some kind of illness, people filled in what they didn't explain with a deadly and damaging imaginatory assumption that led to people's deaths. Now, we can explain what that all was. Epilepsy. Congenital short-circuits that develop in the brain. Nobody thinks it's "demons" anymore; in fact, if you're a parent and you take your epileptic kid to a priest instead of a neurologist, you can get in serious legal trouble!

It's all about the way people look at things. Don't just go with what sounds more hopeful, loving, and heart-warming. Think and say, "We don't have all the answers. But someday, we will."

**Scatterbrain** · 11-19-2009 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by really

Subjective perceptions:
- relatively true, intrinsic to point of view, experience and qualia
- transitory
- improvable; verifiable through experience
- exists in nature of experience
- E.g. memory, positionality / opinion, perspectives, beliefs, state of mind, unconscious beliefs, etc.
- "All people that kill others are bad people, but that's just how I might perceive it at the moment."

Pure Subjectivity / Divine Reality (Please note capitalized letters):
- universally True, innate to Context of mind, Absolute Truth
- intrinsic to existence / subjectivity, a priori to all experience
- eternal
- improvable / non-linear; verifiable through revelation
- exists as Context of experience and beyond (Infinite)
- E.g. field of consciousness and existence, void, awareness, "light".
- "Directly knowing God is transcendental, wise and intuitive in comparison to what would otherwise seem objective, logical or describable."

They're the same thing, you say they're both subjective but then you say that the second simply is universally true.

Honestly, too much text and too little content. I can't bare to read it all. =|

**really** · 11-19-2009 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by mini0991

This can basically be summed up as a classical problem of interpretation.

There are given phenomona that occur that we do not immediately understand. There may come a day when we get coherent explanations for these things. But to say that such things are a result of "God" is erroneous; the more accurate thing to say is, "We don't know."

To expand upon my point. In another thread I mentioned the example of Carl Sagan and what his position on UFOs was. He believed that UFOs were neither aliens nor anything else immediately explainable. Essentially, an odd event was occuring all over the world and we had no explanation for it. But what basis do we have to say that UFOs are aliens, versus just saying that we don't know what they are? The mindset of an irrational person would say the more romanticized, ritzy, and cool-sounding "It's Aliens! They've come to deliever a message of hope!" and a rational person would go "Well, wait a minute. Instead of just saying they're aliens and going with that, just because we don't understand what's going on, can't we explore other scenarios first?"

The truth is, not a damn person really knows whether or not there is a God. You can go two roads from this point. You can have the mindset that such phenomona that occurs are "ghosts", "angels", "God", etc. Or, you can just say "I don't know what is happening," and not look like an idiot fifty years down the road when such phenomona is successfully explained scientifically.

Originally, women with diseases such as epilepsy were burned at the stake under the assumption that they were possessed witches. Then, things couldn't be explained, but rather than saying she has some kind of illness, people filled in what they didn't explain with a deadly and damaging imaginatory assumption that led to people's deaths. Now, we can explain what that all was. Epilepsy. Congenital short-circuits that develop in the brain. Nobody thinks it's "demons" anymore; in fact, if you're a parent and you take your epileptic kid to a priest instead of a neurologist, you can get in serious legal trouble!

It's all about the way people look at things. Don't just go with what sounds more hopeful, loving, and heart-warming. Think and say, "We don't have all the answers. But someday, we will."

mini0991, I understand what you're saying, but at the depths of its core, this is not about interpretation. This is not about jumping to conclusions, fantasies or imagining things on a whim. Religions never started from an "idea" of God, contrary to how it might seem to some people. The pure spirituality of the matter is confirmed by what is termed revelation. A revelation of the Divine; a discovery of God has nothing to do with what one is thinking. It is empty of concepts. The nature of revelation holds that such a Reality has always existed. Revelation has not changed ideas or perceptions (as I have defined them) but simply revealed what is prior to them; what already is here in this instant. Therefore, there is no "waiting" for an "answer", since the "answer" is intrinsic to existence itself. Hence the many spiritual arguments that emphasize the block of "seeking" itself.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

They're the same thing, you say they're both subjective but then you say that the second simply is universally true.

Obviously they're not the same thing, I've tried my best to distinguish them apart from each other with all those points. As I said, they're both subjective, but that is not entirely the point. One is Context (The Divine), the other is content (ideas, perceptions, etc). Simple enough?

**O'nus** · 11-19-2009 07:55 PM

Before I thoroughly read this, the crux of your argument is similar to venomfangx's.

To answer this best, please consider the following video as my reply would be the same:

~

**really** · 11-20-2009 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by O'nus

Before I thoroughly read this, the crux of your argument is similar to venomfangx's.

To answer this best, please consider the following video as my reply would be the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCPbE8ymsEw

~

I wouldn't skim over this, please read it carefully. Don't bother posting something unrelated without elaborating. I'll tell you now that this is not like "venomfangx's" argument at all, and the following response against that is equally unrelated.

**O'nus** · 11-20-2009 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by really

Category Error and Divine Reality

One of the main problems to understand, especially for skeptics, is the spiritual paradigm is not explicit, logical or comprehensible in typical domains of science, or within the Newtonian paradigm of causality (and objectivity, etc). More importantly, "why" this is the case. This may bring up conflict in that spirituality seems founded on vague, undefined, "magical" or even supernatural descriptions. Consequently the belief system might be disregarded or passed of as nonsense before further examination. Worse, it could be seen as the exact opposite of what it represents; typically degraded with childish, exaggerated comparisons including the belief in fairies of flying spaghetti monsters, each of which completely ignore the importance of spiritual context.

Let us keep this in mind. So far, you are right; believing in something, for no reason or logical assumption, does put it on par with flying donkey angels and dodo bird elephant hybrids.

The importance of Truth is detailed here, but I cannot "prove" the Truth and it follows that languaging is a profound limitation. If anything, the closest areas of studies to the Divine are epistemology, ontology and theology. Typically, we can elaborate on the validity of the "truth" of something by coherence, correspondence and through pragmatism. However, correspondence is limited as the Divine Truth denies ordinary ideas or perceptions, which would otherwise seem true. At first, the concept of Divine Truth also seems incoherent in that it is Absolute and doesn't have any meaning with regard to leading to new bodies of knowledge. Thirdly, pragmatism holds that the Divine is only True to those who have faith, for example, yet many mystics would agree that the Divine exists whether or not one believes in it or wishes to discover it. Again, this brings up the emphasis on the nature of the Absolute Truth.

You are making the problem here. The "Truth" is simply outside of our natural reason. Thus, how can we even speak of it to each other if it exists purely in subjectivity? You make this insane premise and expect a logical outcome to come?

You realize that you are still using logic to try and show that it exists illogically? There is almost no way that you cannot apply logic in some form. Why can you not come to grips with this?

Furthermore, you seem to completely neglect, perhaps willingly, that logic and labels still function in utility. Even Wittgenstein admitted this to himself after writing Tractatus. You are still stuck in his first forms of problems with language and not grasping the true power of lingual utility.

But let's continue..

Divine Reality concerns the Absolute Truth, for it is the Source and Creator of all Existence: All that has been; is now, and forever shall ever be, and beyond. If the Truth already exists everywhere without a single word or thought, what is the purpose of proof? One might say something like "so I have a reason to believe in it", but further examine that: "What reason do I need?" Perhaps one would say this is unfalsifiable, but is it really a claim, or simply a description of the self-evident? Nothing has been "imagined" or "made up" on a whim; there is consistency that every mystic/true spiritual teacher will essentially report the same finding. Everybody who has a clear mind will honestly know that "the meaning of life" or "the Truth of everything" is not intellectual. It is spiritual.

You can then replace "truth" for anything subjective then, really. It is no longer a means to proof, but your inexorable use of logic; you are exercising subjective means. You know this.

Objective certainty:
- factual; related to content of mind and the world.
- transitory
- provable / linear; verifiable through demonstration / specifics / logic
- exists within the mentalized or scientific framework
- E.g. science, logical thinking, empirical studies, etc.
- "It seems reasonable that straight lines are not curved. That is factual and logical."

I get the feeling that you limit objective certainty to materialism and feel it cannot be applied to subjective matters. What about psychology?

Subjective perceptions:
- relatively true, intrinsic to point of view, experience and qualia
- transitory
- improvable; verifiable through experience
- exists in nature of experience
- E.g. memory, positionality / opinion, perspectives, beliefs, state of mind, unconscious beliefs, etc.
- "All people that kill others are bad people, but that's just how I might perceive it at the moment."

This is probably the most susceptible to error and ignorance. I hope you agree.

Pure Subjectivity / Divine Reality (Please note capitalized letters):
- universally True, innate to Context of mind, Absolute Truth
- intrinsic to existence / subjectivity, a priori to all experience
- eternal
- improvable / non-linear; verifiable through revelation
- exists as Context of experience and beyond (Infinite)
- E.g. field of consciousness and existence, void, awareness, "light".
- "Directly knowing God is transcendental, wise and intuitive in comparison to what would otherwise seem objective, logical or describable."

You are really harping on this and it is exactly like St. Anselm.

You still can easily reaplce "pure subjectivity" or "divine reality" with anything. You made this illogical premise and you cannot seem to come to grips with the major problems it allows.

But let us continue..

Sometimes people argue that this "is subjective" and want to know how this is distinguishable from every other belief. Although it is true that spiritual reality is subjective, one would be naive and miss the point through this small observation, which seems to do more distracting than actually provide insight. One must realize that all Reality is subjective. While we can say there is an objective reality that only provides certainty, it is validated and granted meaning by a subjective context - what is so often ignored. Here, the infinite Context is what skeptics and atheists disbelieve in, yet without it nothing can exist. The vast majority of human kind are unaware of it, since their state of consciousness and mind inherently and instinctually identifies with objects and perceptions.

Firstly, you must realize that skeptics, like myself, are still always open to the idea that we are wrong and can be proven wrong. You are not providing any means to be proven wrong. Because of that, you have opened a major flaw, through logic (ironically), that you allow for other silly things.

You may try to excuse it off that it is not associated with logic, but you are neglecting the fact that you are using logic to prove that it is not within logic.

God is not imagined, He is beyond imagination

Some may say that there actually is no God, but the real God is "you" and that the belief in God is a only a perception. I am neither describing my perceptual mind nor a collective-consciousness, since both are subject to time and space. It is also somewhat ironic that somebody can believe that "the actual divine (supernatural) non-dual entity is YOUR SELF" (O'nus) , since I have pointed out the unity of God with the Self. Furthermore, with some familiarity, it'd be known that there is no "your" or "you" in pure non-duality, as they directly relate to the separate egoic entity, along with what most people define as the "self".

If you believe in unity so much, then tell me why there are so many conflicts between consciousness? What means do they use to learn from each other? What is the best means of one perception to learn the truth from another?

Consider that, and you may see how each self is a perceiver, but must utilize proper learning methods in order to truly evolve rather than just propagate their own meandering nonsense.

Why should I choose to believe in this? This is supernatural, improvable and unfalsifiable, etc.

First of all, I am not forcing anyone to believe in any of this. I am simply doing my best to explain what so often seems to be misleading. I believe I have broken through an inner critical barrier, and wish to share insight.

I just want you to know that, I too have felt the spiritual barrier broken and have exercised what I thought to be astral enlightenment and self-transcendence. However, there was far greater truth in existentialism especially when juxtaposed with humanism.

I'd consider that this is not all that it seems. At some point one has to see that the Truth of existence will not be found through any rationalization, proving, thinking or conceptualizing. This is what the mind does; the mind and its content is this. However, the Infinite Context of Reality would render all of this useless. Ponder this deeply: Why does the Truth need to be conceptualized to know it? The Truth is, you ARE it already, and it is re-emphasized again when we are seeking the Truth of ourselves; our Real nature. When one seeks the Truth of all as it is, there is no conceptualization. Therefore, most of what I am explaining here is the limitation of reasoning more than anything else. Science and logic does not encompass all Reality, by nature.

You see how much you rely on that premise? You said that it was not the primary argument of yours and that I ought to not skim over, but it is the only real difference. We could semantically separate a few things and you would find that you and I agree on a lot of personal matters.

However, there is just no need to implicate the humans reasoning with silly illogical nonsense. Logic is very powerful and the best tool we have to truth and here you are excusing this argument out of it just by saying, "It's not logical".

How are you unable to see that, by saying so, you allow for an infinite amount of other truths to be real?

If I were to go to the patients I work with in a mental hospital with your approach, I would never get anything done. I would have to sit idly by and actually consider that, yes, it is possible that each and every one of these individuals are telling the truth about what they say. I ought to always consider that I do not know the divine reality of things and that they are exercising their subjective perception of the divine and I ought not to muddle with something that is outside of reason.

But this is not the case; science can examine the subjective and it has done so on a powerful level.

You ignore that, and that disappoints me in you. Science is the best way to learn and grow as a species and it does not ignore the possibility of spirits and the intangible. In fact, it continues to give reason to look into it! It is logic and science that have given you the tools to reason this, and for that I am happy to see you passionate. However, I hope you see that others have thought what you have thought and then seen the real truth in the power of the mind. That power is actually by not having any power or divine subjective reality. Just nothingness.

People who are intrigued about this need to consider the real meaning of "faith", "devotion" and understand the limitations of the human intellect or ego. Having these understandings requires wisdom and and awareness, not proof or scientific papers. Nobody should generalize that everybody cannot believe it unless they experience it, or experience something that supports it, although we do know experience has the most influential effect. Accepting that as a given to any belief, let's move on to what is paradoxically not so obvious.

Are you saying that it is wise to sometimes believe in something regardless of reason?

...
One might find that, unconsciously, the person wants the "new paradigm" to satisfy the "old paradigm" when really it would actually replace it through transformation. The intellect is a block, here, and trying to understand something that is prior to understanding is impossible. There can only be understanding through very abstract concepts, and that does still lead to more intuitive thought processes.
...
In another sense, the question: "Why should I believe in God?" cannot be answered realistically. The real irony comes from understanding that "Why" is a question founded on mentalization and has no actual existence. As such there cannot be a "why" to anything, in the same way there is no "causes" in Reality. This is a common theme in Satsangs, e.g. Ramesh Baleskar says (paraphrased): "Nothing in existence is 'doing' anything. It's so stupid! So I don't tell anybody about it! It is soley the Will of God behind all occurrences; there is no do-er."

Thus, even the question of "Why" is redundant because it begs for an explanation or an answer - something only the mind can deal with. But Truth of God is not an explanation; it is the nature of Reality as it is. Conceptualization is dualistic, whereas the Truth is non-dualistic. "Why should I believe in this" begs for an arbitrary reason - of which everybody will find one that is relatively different, although in essence spiritual people generally have the same "reasons". Ultimately therefore, questions in the form of such logical format are akin to a dog chasing its tail. It may not help. What is needed is a radical paradigm shift; a shift in awareness, facilitated by devotion and meditation, etc. I doubt there is a mystic that does not agree that wisdom transcends rationality.

If only I could tell you how much it seems like you are speaking to yourself sometimes and the irony involved. I too have thought these things, especially before learning about chaos theory.

If you examine chaos theory, it is a grand theory which shows that there is not necessarily one cause and effect for one thing but a symphony of variables acting independently to bring about circumstances of great value.

Of course, simple cause and effect is easy to understand but this is a much more paramount concept. In chaos, we can still maintain logic and science with an open mind to all things. We do not remove the possibility of anything and we do not negate the truth of anything. It is the justification of how we see things.

But you are stuck on applying truth to reality. Essentially what you have said here is;
- Truth is the intangible nature of reality
- We cannot know it

That is, of course, the better approach I would take if I were you arguing me. That is because, just saying, "It is not of reality but of all things" is simply nonsense and ruins the very concept.

If we say it is the intangible nature of reality, then we examine something much more interesting. There is energy within all things and that energy is intangible. Unfortunately, no science has deep insight to it, but we do have physics. We can observe its behaviour. That is really all we know about it and even the greatest scientists speculate that this energy is the mother of all things. Can you not see the beauty in this being parallel to your truth in the divine?

Revelation transcends the need or rationale for proof

Again, in what way is an Absolute Truth a fact at all, especially if it cannot be proven? One may go on to say "so it serves no discussion", but obviously that is beside the point. This topic does not ask for scientific journals and neither would providing them be significant enough through representation (for the average person, anyway). The purpose for spiritual investigation does not rest in scientific logic; the Truth intrinsically being devoid of concepts. Wouldn't you be rest assured you had nothing to think about or prove for it to be True? This is the importance of Context. A school of fish do not need to swim in a certain direction to demonstrate that they are underwater. The context is devoid of patterns - while the patterns and the fish are classified as the "content" of the water. The water is self-evident in order for the fish to even swim at all! The water is the context in which they swim, in this case. To better that analogy, let's assume that the water thinks it is the fish.

I find it really disheartening that you can really just believe something so easily.

If you are convinced of these things so easily, then by all means, I welcome you to it. Personally, I apply much more conviction and thought in my endeavor for truth. I have found a great plenty of it and that many people think they have found truth but, are in fact, stuck in an isolated delusion where the truth and the world make sense to them so letting go of it is too hard to deal with.

The only reason many people will not shift forms of thinking is because of how subjectively convincing it is even though the alternative is much more rewarding and beneficial.

This similarity is also like the Source of existence is not redundant, but described as both innate to all existence, and transcendental to ordinary human consciousness. In that simple knowing, all doubts and fears can be transcended.

Didn't you also say,

"I'll tell you now that this is not like "venomfangx's" argument at all, and the following response against that is equally unrelated."

But here you are saying the same thing.

How does one represent the Truth then? As God; as Self. Besides that, the real Self is what is not definable, and the importance rests in understanding that we are believing in what already exists and does never change. Most people have the problem of giving authority to the concept and not the self-evident. It is not an easy task to "grasp" because it is not about being "grasped." When you are asked to believe something you expect to grasp on the concept, but paradoxical fear arises when the concept lies with God. With some honest examination, one may see that defining the True Self just so one can believe in it is somewhat hypocritical, and sometimes may even feed the very mechanism that obscures it.

When Socrates said "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

Exactly, that is all Socrates knew. Do you know what Socrates thinks of Gods? Did you actually read Socrates (ie. Plato)?

Tell me, please oh for the life of everything, tell me what they thought of Gods?

I hope this makes a lot of sense, and there are many concepts and other arguments that analyze the nature Divinity or Reality, but here I have summarized the fundamental concepts. Simplicity is the key, yet it is infinitely more simpler than this.

I highly suggest you read "Being and Nothingness" by Jean-Paul Sartre. It changed my life at the time I thought these same things you are arguing.

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Nothingn...8736989&sr=8-1

I realize you are inclined to think that, if I truly believed what you believed, I would still believe it. However, you ought to consider that you could still be wrong. Even though you provide no way of being so.

~

**really** · 11-21-2009 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let us keep this in mind. So far, you are right; believing in something, for no reason or logical assumption, does put it on par with flying donkey angels and dodo bird elephant hybrids.

Seemingly at first, yes, but notice my emphasis: “...each of which completely ignore the importance of spiritual context.” What you’re saying is really more of a “first impression,” I mean it’s a shallow analysis if you ask me. You’re letting an apparent flaw take your position against it, while also seeming to miss my other points that complement this unfalsifiablitity, perhaps making it easier to understand.

Do you see the connection with the unfalsifiablility of Being and Existence? I am alluding equally to that. Obviously, Reality itself is not a conclusion from reason – reason says it “ought to be”, but this is about purely “as it is” alone, and that is known pristine in subjectivity.

Spoiler for Logic and the illogical:

What I am doing is showing the limitations of reasoning. Have you realized that I’m using language to show the limitation of language, and concepts to show the limitations of concepts? This is mostly done indirectly, which is why it is hard to understand. So you ask: How can we speak of it to each other if it exists purely in subjectivity? Well, that is what "concepts" are for! Beside spiritual literature and teachings that I have briefly mentioned (which are unscientific), these are concepts that additionally serve to assert their own limitations.

Let’s analogously say that the ultimate (totality of) Reality is singularly a rectangular piece of paper. When I conceptualize this, by drawing symbols on the paper, I cannot prove that the rectangular paper exists, can I? However, what I do is demonstrate that the drawing is obviously purposeless and useless. More profoundly, I must assume that the paper exists in order to draw. Similarly, the “content” of conceptualization has no purpose in a Context of pure Self-Existence. It only has purpose in relationship to other concepts, of which are, in the case of meditation and contemplation, purported to become subdued and eventually vanish. When I talk about concepts being a limitation, of course, that is a concept. But the purpose and logic arises in relation to other concepts about reality which all pretend that the illogical cannot exist. By that I mean, Reality as it is, is illogical because, ultimately it transcends all reasoning and linear conceptualization.

May I ask what you know of defining something as “Absolute”? Can you tell me about any Absolute Reality? I don’t mean to sound condescending if I do, but I honestly can’t see that you understand this. There is, without a doubt, an Absolute Reality. However, the nature of reason itself, as you might say, seems to take on a stance that it can only postulate that something is 98% correct, and it is only applicable to the temporal world of form. Is it not futile in this case, to seek ways of proof, therefore?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, you seem to completely neglect, perhaps willingly, that logic and labels still function in utility. Even Wittgenstein admitted this to himself after writing Tractatus. You are still stuck in his first forms of problems with language and not grasping the true power of lingual utility.

Reading what I just explained above, this is exactly what I’m not stuck in. It seems that you've contradicted yourself; I’m not trying to "prove" something, but I'm utilizing the limitations of logic in its own description. Utility is what it’s about here, yet it ceases upon recognition of the Divine, as a psychological paradox. So really, it’s something that you may need to reconsider, if you’re going to say irrelevant things like “…but you are neglecting the fact that you are using logic to prove that it is not within logic.” Sorry but I don’t see how this point follows from your last.

Spoiler for Category Error:

Actually, I can’t replace it with anything whatsoever, because the nature of an Absolute Truth is all encompassing. In an infinite Reality, what is missing? Therefore, everything that is arbitrary must collapse. Only oneness remains, and that by definition excludes nothing.

If I were to say, “dodo bird elephant hybrids" were the pure subjectivity, I’d contradict myself out of the nature of the claim – which pertains to subjective, transitory, arbitrary perceptions. It also fails in many other respects, so perhaps you should post an alternate example that fits my “Pure Subjectivity” criteria, or otherwise make no such claim. Saying it is identical because it unfalsifiable is shallow.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I get the feeling that you limit objective certainty to materialism and feel it cannot be applied to subjective matters. What about psychology?

What about psychology – does that fall under a mentalized or scientific framework? Is it in the domain of science? You tell me. I said nothing of materialism. You might be referring to the base quote alone, but that is just one example of that category.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is probably the most susceptible to error and ignorance. I hope you agree.

If you mean that perceptions and experiences are vulnerable to argument and are unreliable, then my answer is "yes." However, this does not include the Self-evident Reality as Divinity, which is not subject to dualistic confrontations.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you believe in unity so much, then tell me why there are so many conflicts between consciousness? What means do they use to learn from each other? What is the best means of one perception to learn the truth from another?  Consider that, and you may see how each self is a perceiver, but must utilize proper learning methods in order to truly evolve rather than just propagate their own meandering nonsense.

Are you talking about human behavior, war, and contrasting opinions, political/propaganda, etc.? Please be more specific.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I just want you to know that, I too have felt the spiritual barrier broken and have exercised what I thought to be astral enlightenment and self-transcendence. However, there was far greater truth in existentialism especially when juxtaposed with humanism.

I was aware of the connection you made between those philosophies, existentialism and humanism, but this response actually confused me. What exactly is “astral enlightenment”? (If you think this particular question will go far off-topic, don't worry about responding.)

Originally Posted by O'nus

If I were to go to the patients I work with in a mental hospital with your approach, I would never get anything done. I would have to sit idly by and actually consider that, yes, it is possible that each and every one of these individuals are telling the truth about what they say. I ought to always consider that I do not know the divine reality of things and that they are exercising their subjective perception of the divine and I ought not to muddle with something that is outside of reason.

This doesn’t make sense. I think you’re mixing up an analysis of conceptualizing Divine Reality with applying it to human opinion(s). It is far from that, that’s why you’ll notice I had plotted two different “subjective” descriptions out of the three. Again, they were:

Spoiler for Subjective Content vs. Context:

thus:

Subjectivity:

Pure Context > Perceptual Content

as:

Absolute > Relative

Originally Posted by O'nus

But this is not the case; science can examine the subjective and it has done so on a powerful level.  You ignore that, and that disappoints me in you. Science is the best way to learn and grow as a species and it does not ignore the possibility of spirits and the intangible. In fact, it continues to give reason to look into it!

The fact that science can only examine subjectivity makes it no more or less what it is. It is prior to an objective purpose. I’ve tried my best to illustrate that actually nothing can be done in the realm of science to “prove” Divinity. There is a profound difference in paradigms, and even the very “proof” obscures Divine existence. I think that is what you’re missing. I haven’t ignored that at all, in fact, it’s what this thread is fundamentally about. Science may be able to examine subjectivity, but in this context it has no meaning. Pure (Subjective) Reality does not need to be examined in order to exist: It exists forever with or without reasoning, as all reasoning is a limited superposition that cannot actually discover truth, by nature. For one thing, it draws temporary conclusions and facts that are subject to change, thus, by paradigm, it has no way to ever arrive at an ultimate truth. It merely concludes through what is but a reflection of the reasoning itself.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is logic and science that have given you the tools to reason this, and for that I am happy to see you passionate. However, I hope you see that others have thought what you have thought and then seen the real truth in the power of the mind. That power is actually by not having any power or divine subjective reality. Just nothingness.

It follows therefore, that science as a product of the mind, equally has no power to prove anything. It can only prove an arbitrary statement or make a hypothesis (etc), but it can never prove the prevailing Context out of which these notions arise. The flaw is to say that therefore there is no Divine Reality!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you saying that it is wise to sometimes believe in something regardless of reason?

In this case, yes of course. In a logical context, this would seem invalid. But to spirituality however, this is wisdom itself. You can’t mix the two by saying, “therefore spirituality is invalid,” because that is a one-dimensional understanding. Wisdom is of a higher paradigm then scientific reasoning, and contrary to typical prejudgement, it would not allow for the assertions of “flying donkey angels and dodo bird elephant hybrids,” and simply never has.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If only I could tell you how much it seems like you are speaking to yourself sometimes and the irony involved. I too have thought these things, especially before learning about chaos theory.  

If you examine chaos theory, it is a grand theory which shows that there is not necessarily one cause and effect for one thing but a symphony of variables acting independently to bring about circumstances of great value.   

Of course, simple cause and effect is easy to understand but this is a much more paramount concept. In chaos, we can still maintain logic and science with an open mind to all things. We do not remove the possibility of anything and we do not negate the truth of anything. It is the justification of how we see things.

I don’t think we need to delve into chaos theory to simply identify the limitation of causality, which lies within reason itself. If you say you have “thought these things,” then what is your conclusion on asking “Why” in the seeking for an Absolute Truth; do you not see the limitation of linear reasoning?

Originally Posted by O'nus

But you are stuck on applying truth to reality. Essentially what you have said here is; 
- Truth is the intangible nature of reality 
- We cannot know it

 That is, of course, the better approach I would take if I were you arguing me. That is because, just saying, "It is not of reality but of all things" is simply nonsense and ruins the very concept.

I’m not exactly sure how you arrived at these conclusions, but I’ll state mine here:

- The Absolute Truth, i.e. the Divine Truth is intrinsic to Reality, which is perfectly logical. Thus, it follows that it is also intrinsic to, yet not limited to, all things. It is intangible in the sense that all truth is subjective and experiential.

- Therefore, we cannot know it through science and reasonable mechanisms. We can only know it through what we are, and this means it already exists. At first this sounds self-fulfilling, but it is confirmed by subjective revelation – which by nature holds priority beyond all conceptualization, above any fanciful thought. What has arrived throughout history were explanations and spiritual dialogue, but the revelation is what stood first.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If we say it is the intangible nature of reality, then we examine something much more interesting. There is energy within all things and that energy is intangible. Unfortunately, no science has deep insight to it, but we do have physics. We can observe its behaviour. That is really all we know about it and even the greatest scientists speculate that this energy is the mother of all things. Can you not see the beauty in this being parallel to your truth in the divine?

Yes and no. It is still limited in that it begs for conceptualization of that which I address as having none. I am telling you, there is nothing to discover, prove, or look into. It is another paradigm of non-linearity and thus it is beyond space, time, concepts, and areas of study, things, languages and words. It seems to me that you argue against only small issues of my posts; while forgetting about many other concepts I have mentioned. Are you saying wisdom is equivalent to rationality, concerning higher consciousness?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I find it really disheartening that you can really just believe something so easily.

If you are convinced of these things so easily, then by all means, I welcome you to it. Personally, I apply much more conviction and thought in my endeavor for truth. I have found a great plenty of it and that many people think they have found truth but, are in fact, stuck in an isolated delusion where the truth and the world make sense to them so letting go of it is too hard to deal with.   

The only reason many people will not shift forms of thinking is because of how subjectively convincing it is even though the alternative is much more rewarding and beneficial.

Trust me, it’s laughable that most people don’t! Remember what I’m talking about: self-evident existence. Not a personal belief set or private dream-sequence. This is where Divinity is valid, within Subjective Context – the universal substrate of all experience. If I don’t have to think about it for it to be True, it already exists, and it is intrinsic to existence. This is not only a simple reason, but also a widely accepted historical fact. Back to the fish analogy – If the fish reason that they believe in the water, yet understand it exists with or without reasoning about it, it doesn’t make them naïve and gullible, but wise and aware. It is not a product of reasoning, therefore. 

Originally Posted by O'nus

Didn't you also say,   

"I'll tell you now that this is not like "venomfangx's" argument at all, and the following response against that is equally unrelated."

  But here you are saying the same thing.

Perhaps you should define what his argument is then. Because, according to that video you posted, what "venomfangx's" argues is that God is outside existence. I never said that, I said He is within all things and beyond. He is merely outside reason and logic, by paradigm, and thus, transcendental to ordinary human consciousness. This does not mean God is not immanent.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Exactly, that is all Socrates knew. Do you know what Socrates thinks of Gods? Did you actually read Socrates (ie. Plato)?

No, I have not read whole books, but still have read about it. How does this address my point – that the essence of God is not contained within reason and subsequent knowledge?

Originally Posted by O'nus

 Tell me, please oh for the life of everything, tell me what they thought of Gods?

What Plato/Socrates thought of the Gods really has little to do with what I am talking about it. The Gods had bodies and interacted with humans, were obviously plural, etc. On the other hand, I know Socrates believed in God, particularly in the relationship of his mission in philosophy and morality, and especially to draw attention to the importance of one’s soul. Nevertheless, I think you need to be more specific with what you’re asking and how it pertains to this thread.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I realize you are inclined to think that, if I truly believed what you believed, I would still believe it. However, you ought to consider that you could still be wrong. Even though you provide no way of being so.

This isn’t about being right or wrong, the thread simply concerns the limitation of reasoning when it comes to the Truth as it is. There’s no way that can change, by virtue of what reasoning is.

As for the book, thanks for mentioning it, I just downloaded it. Sartre says some things that are similar to my arguments, and other things that are quite different. Do you have anything to add?

**O'nus** · 11-27-2009 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by really

Seemingly at first, yes, but notice my emphasis: “...each of which completely ignore the importance of spiritual context.” What you’re saying is really more of a “first impression,” I mean it’s a shallow analysis if you ask me. You’re letting an apparent flaw take your position against it, while also seeming to miss my other points that complement this unfalsifiablitity, perhaps making it easier to understand.

A flaw is a flaw. I realize you are trying to excuse the flaw and play it off as an acting part of the theory, but it is utilizing a flawed premise which cannot be ignored.

Do you see the connection with the unfalsifiablility of Being and Existence? I am alluding equally to that. Obviously, Reality itself is not a conclusion from reason – reason says it “ought to be”, but this is about purely “as it is” alone, and that is known pristine in subjectivity.

I am not sure what you are speaking of here. Clarify please.

What I am doing is showing the limitations of reasoning. Have you realized that I’m using language to show the limitation of language, and concepts to show the limitations of concepts? This is mostly done indirectly, which is why it is hard to understand. So you ask: How can we speak of it to each other if it exists purely in subjectivity? Well, that is what "concepts" are for! Beside spiritual literature and teachings that I have briefly mentioned (which are unscientific), these are concepts that additionally serve to assert their own limitations.

You are still going on about this Wittgenstein 101 philosophy. Step it up. There is still functionality in language and reasoning in utility. It does not matter in the philosophy of representation if we have utility in reason and justification. Utility is key in communicating philosophies and relative perceptions; it is what we are doing at the moment. I think you may struggle to understand the strength of utility as much as you like to think people struggle with your philosophy.

It does not matter what the representations fail to encompass if we can still utilize their utility. That is all that matters.

Also, the limitations you are trying to address are actually functional variables to seek out the truth and filter out nonsense. Realize that, by grasping onto these "limitations" in a pejorative manner, you fail to see how they are actually significantly beneficial.

Let’s analogously say that the ultimate (totality of) Reality is singularly a rectangular piece of paper. When I conceptualize this, by drawing symbols on the paper, I cannot prove that the rectangular paper exists, can I? However, what I do is demonstrate that the drawing is obviously purposeless and useless. More profoundly, I must assume that the paper exists in order to draw. Similarly, the “content” of conceptualization has no purpose in a Context of pure Self-Existence. It only has purpose in relationship to other concepts, of which are, in the case of meditation and contemplation, purported to become subdued and eventually vanish. When I talk about concepts being a limitation, of course, that is a concept. But the purpose and logic arises in relation to other concepts about reality which all pretend that the illogical cannot exist. By that I mean, Reality as it is, is illogical because, ultimately it transcends all reasoning and linear conceptualization.

An elaborate analogy for a premise that is flawed. Something outside of reason and logic can be described as anything. There's no point in directly addressing the example itself if you excuse the analogous character as being outside analogical reasoning.

May I ask what you know of defining something as “Absolute”? Can you tell me about any Absolute Reality? I don’t mean to sound condescending if I do, but I honestly can’t see that you understand this. There is, without a doubt, an Absolute Reality. However, the nature of reason itself, as you might say, seems to take on a stance that it can only postulate that something is 98% correct, and it is only applicable to the temporal world of form. Is it not futile in this case, to seek ways of proof, therefore?

You must realize that I give room for absoluteness as always being an imperfect perception of absolute. This is represented by 98% confidence. How are you so confident to say that you could potentially know absoluteness? Are you really so incapable to see how giving this such room is actually a ways to prove things still?

It is completely idiotic to say that, because there is still 2% room for movement, that all over truths must be removed and ignored. This room is for development and evolving, not as an achilles heel. To see it this way is to absolutely fail to understand its perfect efficiency.

Reading what I just explained above, this is exactly what I’m not stuck in. It seems that you've contradicted yourself; I’m not trying to "prove" something, but I'm utilizing the limitations of logic in its own description. Utility is what it’s about here, yet it ceases upon recognition of the Divine, as a psychological paradox. So really, it’s something that you may need to reconsider, if you’re going to say irrelevant things like “…but you are neglecting the fact that you are using logic to prove that it is not within logic.” Sorry but I don’t see how this point follows from your last.

You are trying to prove that something is outside of proof by using proof logic. It is not my fault if you cannot admit to this.

Actually, I can’t replace it with anything whatsoever, because the nature of an Absolute Truth is all encompassing. In an infinite Reality, what is missing? Therefore, everything that is arbitrary must collapse. Only oneness remains, and that by definition excludes nothing.

Again, it is not my fault if you are trying to use proof logic to prove something is outside of proof and then say that only certain proofs can be outside of proof logic. Really now, categorical logic can be using anything. You really ought to take a logic class to see the true beauty of it. You demonstrate no appreciation of it whatsoever in favor of your own meandering spiritual affinity which seems more like a blocking bias for knowledge than anything. At least logic, at the most confidence, still gives room for being wrong (remember that 2%?).

What about psychology – does that fall under a mentalized or scientific framework? Is it in the domain of science? You tell me. I said nothing of materialism. You might be referring to the base quote alone, but that is just one example of that category.

Psychology is scientific and deals with the mind. Come on now.

Are you talking about human behavior, war, and contrasting opinions, political/propaganda, etc.? Please be more specific.

No point; your response clearly shows you entirely missed the point.

The fact that science can only examine subjectivity makes it no more or less what it is. It is prior to an objective purpose. I’ve tried my best to illustrate that actually nothing can be done in the realm of science to “prove” Divinity. There is a profound difference in paradigms, and even the very “proof” obscures Divine existence. I think that is what you’re missing. I haven’t ignored that at all, in fact, it’s what this thread is fundamentally about. Science may be able to examine subjectivity, but in this context it has no meaning. Pure (Subjective) Reality does not need to be examined in order to exist: It exists forever with or without reasoning, as all reasoning is a limited superposition that cannot actually discover truth, by nature. For one thing, it draws temporary conclusions and facts that are subject to change, thus, by paradigm, it has no way to ever arrive at an ultimate truth. It merely concludes through what is but a reflection of the reasoning itself.

Wrong.

Why bother debating with someone who consistently ignores facts?

It follows therefore, that science as a product of the mind, equally has no power to prove anything. It can only prove an arbitrary statement or make a hypothesis (etc), but it can never prove the prevailing Context out of which these notions arise. The flaw is to say that therefore there is no Divine Reality!

*Facepalm*

Honestly, I'm at a loss of words. You establish one premise and then run off on it. Of course, I could analytically debate them all, but they all root from one central premise. You cannot save that premise by reasoning a hurricane of other propositions under it.

In this case, yes of course. In a logical context, this would seem invalid. But to spirituality however, this is wisdom itself. You can’t mix the two by saying, “therefore spirituality is invalid,” because that is a one-dimensional understanding. Wisdom is of a higher paradigm then scientific reasoning, and contrary to typical prejudgement, it would not allow for the assertions of “flying donkey angels and dodo bird elephant hybrids,” and simply never has.

Show me any other understanding that you could possibly ever have. I am just curious how you can unpretentiously demonstrate this.

I don’t think we need to delve into chaos theory to simply identify the limitation of causality, which lies within reason itself. If you say you have “thought these things,” then what is your conclusion on asking “Why” in the seeking for an Absolute Truth; do you not see the limitation of linear reasoning?

You keep trying to use limitations as a denigration but completely fail in see how it is actually a strength. A strength which your reasoning fails to utilize which is why it is flawed.

- The Absolute Truth, i.e. the Divine Truth is intrinsic to Reality, which is perfectly logical. Thus, it follows that it is also intrinsic to, yet not limited to, all things. It is intangible in the sense that all truth is subjective and experiential.

Tautological reasoning is tautological.

- Therefore, we cannot know it through science and reasonable mechanisms. We can only know it through what we are, and this means it already exists. At first this sounds self-fulfilling, but it is confirmed by subjective revelation – which by nature holds priority beyond all conceptualization, above any fanciful thought. What has arrived throughout history were explanations and spiritual dialogue, but the revelation is what stood first.

Yes and no. It is still limited in that it begs for conceptualization of that which I address as having none. I am telling you, there is nothing to discover, prove, or look into. It is another paradigm of non-linearity and thus it is beyond space, time, concepts, and areas of study, things, languages and words. It seems to me that you argue against only small issues of my posts; while forgetting about many other concepts I have mentioned. Are you saying wisdom is equivalent to rationality, concerning higher consciousness?

Trust me, it’s laughable that most people don’t! Remember what I’m talking about: self-evident existence. Not a personal belief set or private dream-sequence. This is where Divinity is valid, within Subjective Context – the universal substrate of all experience. If I don’t have to think about it for it to be True, it already exists, and it is intrinsic to existence. This is not only a simple reason, but also a widely accepted historical fact. Back to the fish analogy – If the fish reason that they believe in the water, yet understand it exists with or without reasoning about it, it doesn’t make them naïve and gullible, but wise and aware. It is not a product of reasoning, therefore. 

Above is a long rant rooted from a flawed premise. I am not going to bother debating the details extrapolated from a flawed premise. Sorry.

Perhaps you should define what his argument is then. Because, according to that video you posted, what "venomfangx's" argues is that God is outside existence. I never said that, I said He is within all things and beyond. He is merely outside reason and logic, by paradigm, and thus, transcendental to ordinary human consciousness. This does not mean God is not immanent.

Yeah, when the first proposition failed (outside of nature) he said what you said (all things) but the response that argues it is still applicable.

You may not think that negates it. But, the truth is, you do not think anything can. You may use that as a reinforcement for the argument. That is, in my opinion, the most stupidest thing any human can, and does do, ever.

I am not going to debate it, just letting you know that I think it is the stupidest mistake humans are capable of; glorifying the unfalsifiable. I have already tried explaining to you why and you completely dig those fingers into the ears. In fact, you accuse me of doing so.

What Plato/Socrates thought of the Gods really has little to do with what I am talking about it. The Gods had bodies and interacted with humans, were obviously plural, etc. On the other hand, I know Socrates believed in God, particularly in the relationship of his mission in philosophy and morality, and especially to draw attention to the importance of one’s soul. Nevertheless, I think you need to be more specific with what you’re asking and how it pertains to this thread.

...then why did you bring it up?

Furthermore, I am wondering how you knew anything of Socrates when he never wrote anything?

This isn’t about being right or wrong, the thread simply concerns the limitation of reasoning when it comes to the Truth as it is. There’s no way that can change, by virtue of what reasoning is.

As for the book, thanks for mentioning it, I just downloaded it. Sartre says some things that are similar to my arguments, and other things that are quite different. Do you have anything to add?

I never try to be right or wrong but encourage learning and development.

What is the best method to learning?

How is that applicable to your reasoning?

~

**really** · 11-28-2009 03:38 PM

Spoiler for Seeming logical flaw:

It's not a flawed premise, and I have already elaborated (see below). Are you really telling me that you think this is all equivalent to asserting the existence of "flying donkey angels"? Do you not see beyond this mere attribute of "unfalsifiability" - where it actually has no purpose to be falsified? If anything, the only way this can be falsified is simply by understanding that you're not aware of it, and to reach it is a matter of removing mental obstacles that block the awareness.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am not sure what you are speaking of here. Clarify please.

Ok, well that explains a lot. Miss out on that point and it's probably much harder to understand.

Basically:

"Existence" as a generic term encompasses all Reality - actual existence and potential existence. Non-existence is by definition, not a reality. This is logical and true, yes?

"Being" can also be a universal term to encompass all existence, however some say that being is a limitation that is only applicable to actual existence, and potential existence is neither being nor non-being. Regardless, from the universal perspective, all Reality can be seen as "being." That would better suit the scope of this discussion.

When you seek for a Truth that is the Truth of existence and Reality; what you are in Truth, etc - one must accept that the intellect cannot reach it. An intrinsic Truth to being and existence has to be unfalsifiable. To argue against this with comparisons to "arbitrary imaginings" or "flawed ideas" is a simple naiveté.

Furthermore, existence and being are directly related to pure subjectivity - the consciousness or awareness of life, for pure subjectivity is the essence of Reality itself.

This emphasis grows into other descriptions, such as the term "infinite reality." Must the infinite be unfalsifiable, because it cannot be measured in a finite description? Yes. Must it mean there is no way for it to be confirmed? No. Must that mean it is a flawed premise? No. You're ultimately asking somebody to prove that you exist. Can you do that? Any statement you make is going to be insufficient, because the issue is along the same boundary that proof begs.

I could go on to say that it is not even a "premise," because none of this is a product or conclusion of reasoning alone, but reasoning is of course, as you'd agree, is contained in the act of communication. The communication is a simple, paradoxical, yet useful method of reporting a wordless revelation. I'd now point to the religious/spiritual quotes in my first post.

I'd also like to quote Taosaur, who posted an excellent explanation in support of my God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient thread. He addresses a very similar issue:

Spoiler for Quote of Taosaur:

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are still going on about this Wittgenstein 101 philosophy. Step it up. There is still functionality in language and reasoning in utility. It does not matter in the philosophy of representation if we have utility in reason and justification. Utility is key in communicating philosophies and relative perceptions; it is what we are doing at the moment. I think you may struggle to understand the strength of utility as much as you like to think people struggle with your philosophy.

  It does not matter what the representations fail to encompass if we can still utilize their utility. That is all that matters.

  Also, the limitations you are trying to address are actually functional variables to seek out the truth and filter out nonsense. Realize that, by grasping onto these "limitations" in a pejorative manner, you fail to see how they are actually significantly beneficial.

This is all obvious to me. What you’re missing is the same problem as in the No evidence of the paranormal? thread. I'll repeat myself with a quote:

Originally Posted by really

Now, to address the topic of astral domains, which are connected to my point of limitations of logical reasoning (above paragraph). Not the parameters of logic, but the intrinsic limitations, which are indirect to logic’s purpose. Often logic is exercised to be very superficial and categorical – but this pertains only to certain contexts of reality. In other contexts, such as spiritual domains, logic ultimately doesn’t mean anything. That does not subsequently mean that spirituality is fallacious, but rather, that it is transcendental to an intellectual understanding.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You must realize that I give room for absoluteness as always being an imperfect perception of absolute. This is represented by 98% confidence. How are you so confident to say that you could potentially know absoluteness?

Because it is rooted in consciousness and what we are in Reality. How could the Truth of existence be something to find? You are it already! The definition rests in self-evidence; void of concepts.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you really so incapable to see how giving this such room is actually a ways to prove things still?

It is completely idiotic to say that, because there is still 2% room for movement, that all over truths must be removed and ignored. This room is for development and evolving, not as an achilles heel. To see it this way is to absolutely fail to understand its perfect efficiency.

Absoluteness doesn’t need proof, that’s the point. Even if it is 98% certain in reason, it may be likely to change. It is not a logical or provable Reality, but it can certainly be confirmed by revelation.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Psychology is scientific and deals with the mind. Come on now.

Yes, I hope that answers your question.

Originally Posted by O'nus

No point; your response clearly shows you entirely missed the point.

I probably did miss the point. So again, can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Wrong.   

Why bother debating with someone who consistently ignores facts?

Please be more specific. What fact(s) have I denied consistently?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Show me any other understanding that you could possibly ever have. I am just curious how you can unpretentiously demonstrate this.

Ok, here’s a metaphorical example:

Premise: “The world means [personal perspective of world] to me.” (Below are three different paradigms of consciousness expressed in life-view/rationality).

Irrational/Selfish man: Therefore that is the truth. It is [personal perspective of world] to everybody, because that is how I see it.

Rational man: Therefore that is only how I interpret it. A more reliable method than my perception exists to discern truth. Science is the most reliable approach.

Wise/Selfless man: Yet there is no use exercising the mind at all. It cannot arrive or conclude at the ultimate Truth. The Truth is everywhere already.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Tautological reasoning is tautological.

Put it this way:

- Reality include all things
- The ultimate truth includes all things

Thus, is not the ultimate truth intrinsic to Reality?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yeah, when the first proposition failed (outside of nature) he said what you said (all things) but the response that argues it is still applicable.

No it’s not actually. There is no separate, arbitrary God that exists outside existence or natural laws. God by nature is innate in those laws. As Creator, He is one with all Creation, all existence and all things.

Also, define “venomfangx’s” argument or cease mentioning it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

...then why did you bring it up?

I didn’t bring up “the Gods” in question, but I brought up Socrates' quote on knowledge, because:

Originally Posted by really

How does this address my point – that the essence of God is not contained within reason and subsequent knowledge?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, I am wondering how you knew anything of Socrates when he never wrote anything?

You mentioned Plato, didn’t you? Is that a serious question?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I never try to be right or wrong but encourage learning and development.

 What is the best method to learning?

How is that applicable to your reasoning?

Both questions depend on what you want to learn.

Overall, reason and science are generically the best domains and paradigms for learning about the world, life, chemistry, physics, etc. But when it comes to what already exists and is known without a reason or thought, learning is not required.

Spoiler for Logic and its boundaries:

This seems like more semantics. Though, I'm sure I've made it clear about why you misunderstood me. I can even quote something that you yourself have said:

Originally Posted by O'nus

There is still functionality in language and reasoning in utility. It does not matter in the philosophy of representation if we have utility in reason and justification. Utility is key in communicating philosophies...

**O'nus** · 12-04-2009 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by really

It's not a flawed premise, and I have already elaborated (see below). Are you really telling me that you think this is all equivalent to asserting the existence of "flying donkey angels"? Do you not see beyond this mere attribute of "unfalsifiability" - where it actually has no purpose to be falsified? If anything, the only way this can be falsified is simply by understanding that you're not aware of it, and to reach it is a matter of removing mental obstacles that block the awareness.

I could have sworn I replied to this post already.. but I will go again.

Yes, I do think they are on the same equivalence as flying donkey angels. You are not distinguishing any logical parameters.

"Existence" as a generic term encompasses all Reality - actual existence and potential existence. Non-existence is by definition, not a reality. This is logical and true, yes?

"Being" can also be a universal term to encompass all existence, however some say that being is a limitation that is only applicable to actual existence, and potential existence is neither being nor non-being. Regardless, from the universal perspective, all Reality can be seen as "being." That would better suit the scope of this discussion.

When you seek for a Truth that is the Truth of existence and Reality; what you are in Truth, etc - one must accept that the intellect cannot reach it. An intrinsic Truth to being and existence has to be unfalsifiable. To argue against this with comparisons to "arbitrary imaginings" or "flawed ideas" is a simple naiveté.

You are making a long winded elaboration of, truth exists outside our natural world, thus we cannot reason it. I will follow with you here, but this is still your crux of debate.

Furthermore, existence and being are directly related to pure subjectivity - the consciousness or awareness of life, for pure subjectivity is the essence of Reality itself.

Do you give no credit to objectivity? You consider yourself non-dual but you do not act like it at all. Where is your objective nature to make up for your subjective?

This emphasis grows into other descriptions, such as the term "infinite reality." Must the infinite be unfalsifiable, because it cannot be measured in a finite description? Yes. Must it mean there is no way for it to be confirmed? No. Must that mean it is a flawed premise? No. You're ultimately asking somebody to prove that you exist. Can you do that? Any statement you make is going to be insufficient, because the issue is along the same boundary that proof begs.

Longer elaboration on an already still flawed premise..

I could go on to say that it is not even a "premise," because none of this is a product or conclusion of reasoning alone, but reasoning is of course, as you'd agree, is contained in the act of communication. The communication is a simple, paradoxical, yet useful method of reporting a wordless revelation. I'd now point to the religious/spiritual quotes in my first post.

This is illustrating your inability to appreciate the utility of things.

I keep saying this, but I do not know why I ought to explain it again. You have failed to listen many times already. Do you really want me to debate you and for you to consider my rebuttals, or do you just want to preach your nostalgic philosophy and have others agree with you?

Again, I think you have a severe problem in admitting that you could be, or are, wrong.

Because it is rooted in consciousness and what we are in Reality. How could the Truth of existence be something to find? You are it already! The definition rests in self-evidence; void of concepts.

Things like this, I do not disagree with. I hope you are able to see why I do not disagree.

Absoluteness doesn’t need proof, that’s the point. Even if it is 98% certain in reason, it may be likely to change. It is not a logical or provable Reality, but it can certainly be confirmed by revelation.

Why do you keep bringing up the 98% thing..? I think you really misunderstand that if you keep bringing it up like this.

Please be more specific. What fact(s) have I denied consistently?

You exercise logic to establish your unfalsifiable premise.

You utilize that as its strength. It's a logical fallacy equating it with anything else imaginary.

Premise: “The world means [personal perspective of world] to me.” (Below are three different paradigms of consciousness expressed in life-view/rationality).

Irrational/Selfish man: Therefore that is the truth. It is [personal perspective of world] to everybody, because that is how I see it.

Rational man: Therefore that is only how I interpret it. A more reliable method than my perception exists to discern truth. Science is the most reliable approach.

Wise/Selfless man: Yet there is no use exercising the mind at all. It cannot arrive or conclude at the ultimate Truth. The Truth is everywhere already.

Put it this way:

- Reality include all things
- The ultimate truth includes all things

Thus, is not the ultimate truth intrinsic to Reality?

No it’s not actually. There is no separate, arbitrary God that exists outside existence or natural laws. God by nature is innate in those laws. As Creator, He is one with all Creation, all existence and all things.

Also, define “venomfangx’s” argument or cease mentioning it.

I didn’t bring up “the Gods” in question, but I brought up Socrates' quote on knowledge, because:

You mentioned Plato, didn’t you? Is that a serious question?
Both questions depend on what you want to learn.

Overall, reason and science are generically the best domains and paradigms for learning about the world, life, chemistry, physics, etc. But when it comes to what already exists and is known without a reason or thought, learning is not required.

This seems like more semantics. Though, I'm sure I've made it clear about why you misunderstood me. I can even quote something that you yourself have said:

Sigh.

This is an enormous paradigm difference argument. So, I am just going to state the essential difference. The reason I am doing this, really, is because I honestly do agree with you on many things and disagree with you only on a major plateau of reasoning. Then, we spend a lot of time sifting out the minor differences when it is really only one major paradigm difference that stops any reconciliation.

So, I am moving for a reconciliation. I do not usually, ever, do this.

You;
+ The Truth is an impenetrably powerful entity that encompasses all things and cannot be reasoned by inconsequential contingents.

Me;
+ Equates this premise as being far too favourable for one perspective/dualistic view/non-objective/etc.

We have not really even touched upon my personal views on the topic, and I think that is fine. Personally, I am wondering what you ever do admit you are wrong about, if you have the personal constitution to do so.

Honestly, as much as I enjoy debates, this is just one that won't go anywhere. You are convinced, in your own subjective means, that you are right and completely unrelentingly in your plateau. I cannot even express to you how much I have changed and grown, even from our very own debates, but I honestly feel I have nothing to offer you for a chance at enlightenment because you show no signs of it to me.

Thank you, but I think that is good for me.

~

Thread: Supporting arguments for Spiritual Reality

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Supporting arguments for Spiritual Reality

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions