Beyond God and Evil

[earnest_seeker]

Hello David,

I'm pleased to have your moderate input as opposed to Leyla's vitriol.

I don't see how your conception of God has any relevance to the core spiritual task of opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

Indeed, the way you regard the whole matter as an empirical one only serves to trivialize your outlook from the outset.

To me it is an empirical matter, but at the same time it is not trivial. Why should empirical matters be trivial? They can be not only a matter of life-or-death, but a matter of life-beyond-death. Reality is - to the best of my experience - far more than merely a playing out of predetermined outcomes. That's what I want to open my mind to.

It's a worry that while arguing for the existence of an alien god you are unwilling to share the evidence for it in public.

It's not a worry to me. I know the mindset of some of the members of this forum: attack, attack, attack. I'm unwilling to subject myself to that attack.

earnest: Oh, and of course the other main way in which we disagree is on the nature of the Devil and evil. To me these are real, tangible things, which are natural (and relatively equal) oppositions to God. Reality is a battleground, which one only recognises when one is in certain states. Some drugs can do it to some people. I've been there, and I've experienced evil in action.

David: You're not projecting your own emotionals issues here and turning them into metaphysical entities under the distorting influence of an altered state?

I don't believe so, but anything's possible. My experience is that this perspective continues in a mild form into my everyday life, such that I find myself living on the boundary between two realities.

As one of the moderators, I don't subscribe to that belief [that the universe is infinite in physical extent]. I don't think Kevin or Dan do either. So you're mischaracterizing us here.

I understand that at least Kevin does. See this post, where Kevin responds to the statement "Take your understanding that the Totality is physically infinite. [etc]" without attempting to refute it, but rather with the claim that he "observes" it.

All I affirm, as far as this issue is concerned, is that Reality is everywhere and everywhen. This is a consequence of Reality being defined to be utterly everything, the totality. There is no point where Reality ends and something else begins.

And how is this different to saying that the universe is infinite in physical extent, especially when you make statements like the below?

It is infinite in the sense that it isn't finite

What is the alternative to what you write below? In other words, give me a few other possibilities that you might believe:

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the physical universe extends infinitely outwards in all directions.

I make it my business to not subscribe to any form of dogmatism whatsoever. So if you think you see any other instances of it, please point it out.

Since you asked, I find your beliefs on women/the feminine to be quite dogmatic. You assert that femininity is equivalent to unconsciousness whereas I observe plenty of women operating on highly conscious levels.

[earnest to Anna]: Oh, yes, you are the very epitome of Woman. You haven't had a logical thought in your life: henid city, baby, henid city. You're probably also in the process of manipulating some poor sucker into some form of delusional (as they all are) romantic relationship with you (if you haven't done so already), probably with the intention of polluting the planet with more unconscious souls who haven't a hope of enlightenment (again, if you haven't done so already). You'd best be off and enjoy your shopping and gossip, sweetheart - these forums are clearly going way over your head.

David: I pretty much agree with that.

I thought that you would, which is why I wrote it. You did realise that it was tongue-in-cheek, I hope.

Anna is earnest, but after reading over this thread her thoughts are still very henid-like to me. Amongst the jumble of different traditional concepts clashing together (particularly Christian and Hindu), there is fantasy, confusion, contradictions, vague conceptions, and an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

I agree that some of Anna's thoughts are contradictory - particularly her conception of an omnipotent God who forces suffering upon His creation as a means of it learning to do better - and that some of them are confused/vague - in particular her inability to describe whether God is a separate conscious entity or whether God is infused throughout creation - but I nevertheless find a lot of value in what she writes. She seems to have a sense for spirituality that resonates with me. In particular I find merit in her idea that we are on a path towards knowledge of good and evil. I would add to that that once we have that knowledge, we are obligated to do something with it.

I also find it interesting that she wants to become a "companion" of God, which suggests that she still conceives of spirtuality in terms of having an emotional relationship with another.

I don't remember reading where she wrote that. Either way is fine with me: for example, you have spiritual companions in Dan and Kevin, and that doesn't detract from your own spirituality.

[Leyla Shen]

Clearly, Laird was abducted by a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent alien.

[Carl G]

e_s wrote:

I observe plenty of women operating on highly conscious levels.

I'm moving to where you are, mate! Around here they're mostly pretty dull. But heck, the men are the same way. I do know one semi-conscious woman.

[Leyla Shen]

I can't even remember when Scientology came up. As it happens, though, I find Scientology to be highly implausible as a representative of truth, although who really knows - many things are possible. The fact that one has to pay so much money to learn it makes me very skeptical.

That’s alright. It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve forgotten things you’ve said.

We’re talking about the possibility of a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent alien GOD and you’re worried about money?! Given his non-omnipotence, how do you expect his angels might do their good works to achieve his ends in a capitalist society spawned by the devil?

[David Quinn]

Hello David,

I'm pleased to have your moderate input as opposed to Leyla's vitriol.

Leyla's a wild one, but her heart is in the right place.

I don't see how your conception of God has any relevance to the core spiritual task of opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

Indeed, the way you regard the whole matter as an empirical one only serves to trivialize your outlook from the outset.

To me it is an empirical matter, but at the same time it is not trivial. Why should empirical matters be trivial?

They are trivial in the context of uncovering what is absolutely true about Reality, of becoming aware of its fundamental nature.

Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

They can be not only a matter of life-or-death, but a matter of life-beyond-death. Reality is - to the best of my experience - far more than merely a playing out of predetermined outcomes. That's what I want to open my mind to.

What about timeless knowledge? Do you have any interest in that?

It's a worry that while arguing for the existence of an alien god you are unwilling to share the evidence for it in public.

It's not a worry to me. I know the mindset of some of the members of this forum: attack, attack, attack. I'm unwilling to subject myself to that attack.

If the evidence is good enough it should be able to withstand any attack.

earnest: Oh, and of course the other main way in which we disagree is on the nature of the Devil and evil. To me these are real, tangible things, which are natural (and relatively equal) oppositions to God. Reality is a battleground, which one only recognises when one is in certain states. Some drugs can do it to some people. I've been there, and I've experienced evil in action.

David: You're not projecting your own emotionals issues here and turning them into metaphysical entities under the distorting influence of an altered state?

I don't believe so, but anything's possible. My experience is that this perspective continues in a mild form into my everyday life, such that I find myself living on the boundary between two realities.

It isn't surprising that a powerful altered state can change a person's everyday perspective on things - for better or for worse. Things can seem more significant and real in an altered state, even illusions. A metaphysical thought can suddenly seem charged with the quality of eternal truth. A person's life can be utterly changed by it.

This is one of the main reasons why we observe such a wide variety of religious beliefs in the world. Very few of them are ever formulated by reason, while the vast majority are derived from experiences garnered in altered states.

Altered states can be very insightful at times, but they can also mislead us terribly, mainly because we tend to bring our own emotional baggage and unresolved issues into the experience. The subconscious is quick to project all sorts of things out of this baggage, which the mind unwittingly takes to be real.

It is therefore wise never to trust anything experienced in an altered state.

As one of the moderators, I don't subscribe to that belief [that the universe is infinite in physical extent]. I don't think Kevin or Dan do either. So you're mischaracterizing us here.

I understand that at least Kevin does. See this post, where Kevin responds to the statement "Take your understanding that the Totality is physically infinite. [etc]" without attempting to refute it, but rather with the claim that he "observes" it.

I agree with Kevin that it is impossible to have a boundary without something existing on either side of it, but I'm not sure that he is arguing from this that the universe is infinite in extent. For example, it could be that the universe is curved in such a manner that it is both finite in extent and impossible for us to ever reach its end.

But this is all speculation, as we can never know the truth of it. Even if we do find that the universe is curved in such a manner, we can never rule out the possibility that there are other universes beyond our own curved one.

All I affirm, as far as this issue is concerned, is that Reality is everywhere and everywhen. This is a consequence of Reality being defined to be utterly everything, the totality. There is no point where Reality ends and something else begins.

And how is this different to saying that the universe is infinite in physical extent ....

It may be that "utterly everything" isn't endless from our own finite, physical perspective.

But again, this is useless speculation, as it will always be impossible for us to resolve the issue one way or the other.

More importantly, the issue is irrelevant from a spiritual perspective because we are talking about appearances here and thus about fleeting illusions that Nature whips up in every moment. As such, our ability to comprehend the nature of Realiity doesn't depend on our resolving this issue.

..... especially when you make statements like the below?

It is infinite in the sense that it isn't finite

Reality is formless, meaning that it cannot be captured or contained within a finite form. It is infinite in the sense that it is entirely without form.

I make it my business to not subscribe to any form of dogmatism whatsoever. So if you think you see any other instances of it, please point it out.

Since you asked, I find your beliefs on women/the feminine to be quite dogmatic. You assert that femininity is equivalent to unconsciousness whereas I observe plenty of women operating on highly conscious levels.

We probably have different conceptions of what it means to be conscious.

[earnest to Anna]: Oh, yes, you are the very epitome of Woman. You haven't had a logical thought in your life: henid city, baby, henid city. You're probably also in the process of manipulating some poor sucker into some form of delusional (as they all are) romantic relationship with you (if you haven't done so already), probably with the intention of polluting the planet with more unconscious souls who haven't a hope of enlightenment (again, if you haven't done so already). You'd best be off and enjoy your shopping and gossip, sweetheart - these forums are clearly going way over your head.

David: I pretty much agree with that.

I thought that you would, which is why I wrote it. You did realise that it was tongue-in-cheek, I hope.

My dead-pan reply to your rather obvious satire was itself tongue-in-cheek.

Anna is earnest, but after reading over this thread her thoughts are still very henid-like to me. Amongst the jumble of different traditional concepts clashing together (particularly Christian and Hindu), there is fantasy, confusion, contradictions, vague conceptions, and an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

I agree that some of Anna's thoughts are contradictory - particularly her conception of an omnipotent God who forces suffering upon His creation as a means of it learning to do better - and that some of them are confused/vague - in particular her inability to describe whether God is a separate conscious entity or whether God is infused throughout creation - but I nevertheless find a lot of value in what she writes. She seems to have a sense for spirituality that resonates with me. In particular I find merit in her idea that we are on a path towards knowledge of good and evil. I would add to that that once we have that knowledge, we are obligated to do something with it.

I would say that only a few people are on the path of knowledge. Most are on the path of satisfying their egotistical needs at the expense of gaining knowledge. They live like animals and then they die.

However, Anna, being a woman, doesn't want to exclude anybody.

I also find it interesting that she wants to become a "companion" of God, which suggests that she still conceives of spirtuality in terms of having an emotional relationship with another.

I don't remember reading where she wrote that. Either way is fine with me: for example, you have spiritual companions in Dan and Kevin, and that doesn't detract from your own spirituality.

It would if I regarded either Kevin or Dan as a supreme being and perfomed all my spiritual effort for the purpose of getting intimate and close to him.

-

[brokenhead]

What self?

Are you not aware you exist? You think, therefore you are. You have not required anything external to yourself to prove this to yourself. Why would a putative divine consciousness not have the same awareness? It's as if you were saying "Let's suppose a divine consciousness exists. What could it be aware of, if it doesn't exist?" We are supposing that it does. If so, it could be aware of itself.

Can't you see man you're anthropomorphising God. Leyla has only mentioned it about half a dozen times.Fuck me.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Fuck you? You haven't even taken me to dinner.

You've got it backwards, chief. God created man in his image. We are God's children. I fully acknowledge that I could not conceive the true nature of God in its entirety, much as a small child cannot put himself in his parent's shoes and understand precisely why Mommy had a bad day at work. But a child can understand some things very well.

And I don't care how many time Leyla mentions a point. If it was wrong the first time, it'll be wrong the half-dozenth time.

[brokenhead]

Belief in God needn't be religious. By "religious" I mean belief in a set of doctrines, regular participation in rituals, membership of a church or other organisation, etc. All of that is very far from me.

I have been saying this since I came to GF.

It's a worry that while arguing for the existence of an alien god you are unwilling to share the evidence for it in public.

Yes, why don't we have a nice picnic in this yard where they keep all the starving pit bulls?

Leyla's a wild one, but her heart is in the right place.

I'll take your word for it. I don't have a microscope.

A metaphysical thought can suddenly seem charged with the quality of eternal truth. A person's life can be utterly changed by it.

Okay, how about something mundane?

Since I believe God exists, I pray to him. My prayer takes many forms, as it is always going on. Voices in the head. These voices are sometimes silent. Prayer often takes the form of a dialogue, when I have something specific to ask about, or ask for. Some may call it contemplation as opposed to prayer. But then how do you explain this anecdote I'm going to tell you? I was sitting in my car in a supermarket parking lot in the town where I live. I was deep in "contemplation" about a personal matter, when it suddenly resolved itself, followed by the explicit thought: "Good, now drive up to the Wawa's (a local convenience store), there's a guy that needs a jump." So I pulled out of the parking lot, drove a few blocks to the convenience store, and right there was a black guy standing behind a battered Ford with the hood up, holding two jumper cables in his hand. The other end of the cables was already hooked up to his battery. He was just standing there like he was waiting for me. I gave him the jump start and off he went.

How am I supposed to explain that?

The "eternal truth" is that God exists. You cannot hear him if you don't listen.

[Iolaus]

Yo Earnest,

Iolaus: But since you don't know the substance of your soul, nor the deep workings of reality and creation and existence, it might be that you are asking for a square circle.

Could be, but it's unlikely. If the substance of my soul can support such a state at all, then why wouldn't it be able to support an initialisation in that state? And if it couldn't, then what's to stop God from finding another, different substance to use, which does support it?

Earnest, your reply reminds me of an argument I had with my niece when she was a girl. She asked me, what if magic were true? And I said, there's no such thing as magic, in the sense you mean. Everything in the universe that works, has a way and a method. Even if there is a fairy godmother, it is science of some sort that causes a coach and six to appear. And she kept asking, but what if? And I kept answering, I can't take my mind into such a place, because I know it isn't true.

When you admit that you don't know the substance of your soul, how do you then insist that it is possible for it to be created wise without any process, or that such a wisdom is worth having?

Iolaus: Sigh. You know, if you squint a little different, there is no impurity. There's different ways of seeing.

E: Tell that to the bloke in the torture camp having the blowtorch applied to his lips.

I'm not aware of anyone except perhaps the most adept of yogis who is impervious to extreme physical pain. I'm saying that there are more than one layer to reality, and reality gets a lot better when you see the next layer or two. All the while that the bloke is suffering and the torturer accruing negative karma, there is also total purity and innocence. Sure, neither of them is aware of it, but perhaps you can become aware of it.

Iolaus wrote:What's stopping you from eliminating it all?

I don't know, possibly lack of confidence. Or possibly a lack of power.

But I didn't really mean you alone. I meant that humanity will stop suffering from man's inhumanity to man when man stops treating one another inhumanely. As long as the possibility exists for evil and delusion, the freedom to explore it must be there, otherwise we are controlled. Haven't you seen the Matrix? Those people were happy. And that is the God you aspire to have, if he were omnipotent!

It's all about personal responsibility, not whining and looking outside oneself to be fixed.

H said something very familiar to what you've just said. In return I simply reiterated my argument about "free" will, which you seem to keep on ignoring. I put it in these terms: is it conceivable to you that you would one day walk down to the neighbourhood childcare centre, abduct a two year old girl, and bring her back to your basement, and... well, you get the picture. H, predictably, replied "Well, no, of course not, I would never do that." I responded: "Right, well then how 'free' is your will truly, if this option is not even available to you?"

You see, our will is already constrained such that certain acts of evil are inconceivable to us.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I answer the same way over and over. Your example means nothing. I could not do such a thing, but it is entirely possible that I did do such a thing in a previous life. Look how many people do such things - who whips the slaves, whips the sailors, runs the inquisition, participates in massacres of villages in war? If there is reincarnation, what sort of negative energy might come their way, and might they not be walking among us? and after experiencing the other side, like the tots in the sandbox, eventually they DO learn that it doesn't feel good to get hit over the head. Perhaps I have learned my lesson.

All that I'm saying is that it's most rational that an omnipotent+omnibenevolent God would fashion our wills such that no acts of evil were conceivable to us. Does this mean that we would't have free will? Of course not! We'd still be free to choose exactly how we loved one another, exactly how we exercised our creative powers, exactly what we'd say and do and when - it's just that we would no longer choose (nor ever desire to choose) evil/sin. Wouldn't it be great to be free of that desire? Isn't that what we're all striving for? So why would an omnipotent+omnibenevolent God allow this desire to remain?

You will be free of that desire when you have made a long series of choices and then you will be real.

Remember the guy in the matrix who wanted to be put back into the matrix, forgetting that he ever took the blue pill (or was it the red pill)?

You have no idea whether, under such a circumstance, you would have creative power. What is creative power? I don't know and neither do you.

The conversation moved on, but had I had the opportunity to answer her, I would have said: "All that means is that your morality is the means by which God has constrained your will."

Why do you think God has constrained her will? Why not her own self?

earnest: and yet you believe that God preexists creation - in other words that God is a "finished product with no process", so there is a precedent for it.

Iolaus: Ah, but there is so much about the nature of God that I don't know, whether he is a finished project, whether he has known all from the beginning - even to ask such a question presupposed time and it is so hard for us to imagine timelessness.
To say that God is existence itself - an unfathomable mystery that causes there to be anything at all, which requires a self-causing entity - does not address whether or not he is a finished product. In some ways, such as being immutable and infinite, he is a finished product.

Forgive me for saying it, but your thinking on this issue appears to be confused to say the least. For example: you don't seem to be clear on whether you believe that God precedes existence or whether He is existence.

I have been quite clear. The fundamental attribute of God is existence. Everything else flows from that. Yes, God is existence itself. God is The Only Existent One.

Not that I "love" the evil, but hatred is probably ineffective. Dunno, Anna, I'm conflicted on this one. Part of me believes as you do: that our task is to lift the evil up; part of me believes that the (truly) evil - in particular the metaphysical entities in which we both believe - are incorrigible and irredeemable.

It's OK to not know. The most logical answer is not that any entity is unredeemable.

Well there are those who believe that we are each literally God, viewing Himself through different windows. Are you amenable to that belief?

Yes, but there is always a yes, but.

Yes, but there is something a little more to the story.

There's a difference, though, between a slap on the bum or a bit of minor discomfort, and much of the harsh, unconscionable suffering that exists in the world today: people starving to death; people dying of slow, painful diseases like cancer; people tortured to death for voting the wrong way in an election - in what way are these "little pain"s helping them to become better people?

We're a bunch of assholes in hell here, and it looks like we're pretty hard headed. It's all a choice. You're not blaming God for inflicting these idiocies upon us, are you?

But you didn't answer my first question. Please tell me: do you or do you not believe in an interventionist God? I suppose it's kind of a tricky question for a monist to answer, but I'd like to read what you have to say.

Certain things, like the mind of God or the personalness of God are difficult to understand because it is in a different category of functioning than ours.
I think that the stories in the Bible of Jehovah saying this or that, planning this or that, sending this or that - is utter nonsense. I think that the God of this universe would never even use language. He's way beyond that.
Intervention may happen, but not I think in the way you mean. Like there's this guy, and he hears your prayer, and he says, nah, I don't think I'll give him that...or OK! You win the lottery tomorrow! And jumps in and makes you win the lottery where you otherwise wouldn't.

He interferes EVERYWHERE.

Iolaus wrote:And, I suspect that there are lower beings who do interact with us, something like guardian angels or the new age concept of the higher self (which I have not yet understood).

You mean "higher" beings, rather than "lower" beings, I imagine.

I meant beings lower than God.

Why are we not, then - assuming an omnipotent God - born with the knowledge of good and evil already, or at least with the innate skill to discern the difference?

The question has nothing to do with omnipotence. Perhaps we don't discern well because we are in a situation here that is very confusing, and we are operating on a low level of functioning.

I really hope that you can come up with a better answer than "because it would be too magical". That really doesn't cut the mustard for me.

But we are back now to my niece and her insistence on magic. You want God to make something to heavy for him to lift, or make a square circle. If that means he is not omnipotent, then perhaps there is no such thing.

I also hope that by now you already know my own answer: because the assumption is wrong, and God simply does not have the power to do it.

But not because there is an equally existent evil being he can't control. But because that might just be how reality works.

Iolaus wrote:Something as basic as the experience of evil would be hard to do if there were no chance of it or occurrences of it.

I presume that by "do" you mean "imagine"; going forward on that basis: it would be no harder than to imagine time travel into the past, which plenty of us do quite easily.

No, it would be hard to imagine, and hard to have much impact if someone presented the idea. Your examples are not far off from our actual experience, but if we had never known or seen, nor had anyone else known or seen, any bit of meanness, we would have little reason to imagine it, and it would just make us laugh or ignore the uninteresting idea if it were presented.

I doubt it. He made me in His image, remember?

A drop of water may be H20 but it ain't the Pacific Ocean.

Iolaus wrote:Our reality does appear to be a battleground. God must be rather upset about it.

Right then! That's it! I've come to the conclusion that you just can't (i.e. you don't) believe in an omnipotent God either! If something upset an omnipotent God, then He'd do something about it! The fact that you believe in the possibility of an ongoingly upset God proves to me that you don't really believe that He's omnipotent.

But I was being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure things are going according to plan, perhaps a planned chaos...

Oh, it's simple: I believe that good (with God as protagonist) and evil (with Satan as protagonist) are two intrinsically existing, opposing forces. You don't believe that evil (and in particular Satan) is intrinsically existing - you believe that God created it.

There is nothing but God. There cannot be anything but God. There is no source for what we call manifestation but God. It's all God. The street is God, the car is God, the insect is God.

earnest: And when you slip on loose gravel, fall over a cliff and become a paraplegic perpetually in pain due to your injury, give God the credit? What a loving creator, to cripple you into a life of suffering! Is this truly what an omnipotent yet loving God has in store for some people? Perish the thought.

Iolaus: There is no death.

How in the world is that in any way related to what I wrote? I just can't see it. I didn't mention death at all.

I meant, the game is not so bad. Your piece gets removed from the board, or imprisoned, but there is no death and besides, the man in the wheelchair - maybe he was Beria? Maybe he agreed before he was born to work off some negative karma from all those people he shot while they cried?

Now am I advocating you ever think such a thing when you see someone in an unfortunate situation? God forbid! That would mean you have not understood your lessons. Is that contradictory? Only at one level of perception.

Or hey, maybe he's a whatchamacallit, who has passed beyond the need for birth or death, but has come back to help some of us learn compassion, and he's just hanging out doing us this great service?

This statement contains a contradiction. If God can't create an illogical universe then He is bound by logic, and can't have created it. Therefore God is not the source of logic, therefore He is not the source of all things. This is simply a more explicit manifestation of the contradiction that I noted in my previous post.

Reality is all of a piece. God didn't create logic like a piece of clay that could have made a cup or could have made a saucer. Logic is an attribute of God.

You of course can't countenance it because you believe that God is the source of all things, which would make Him the source of eternal damnation - impossible to believe!I on the other hand believe that evil is in some senses beyond God's control, such that all sorts of horrible things are possible. Not that God simply accepts those things - He does all in His power to prevent them, but His power is limited.

Wow, that's an interesting world you live in. Perhaps these warring beings are not God, but other entities. How would these evil beings keep a soul burning eternally? What kind of burning? Why can't they get out? Why can't God go there? Where did these beings come from?

What is your definition of God? What entitles your God to that name?

earnest: An omnipotent+omnibenevolent God could (and would want to, and therefore would) provide all understanding right away

Iolaus: But what would we do in the bridal chamber??
You mean you and me specifically? I've got a lively imagination - I could explain at length if you're interested, but this forum is neither the time nor place.

Oh, no, no, no. You have misunderstood! The bridal chamber of the Lord, the one Jesus spoke of, the one he said that while many were standing around wanting to get in, only those who are alone will get in. The one where only wise virgins are accepted. The one where God ravishes you if you let him, and you learn a thing or two.

Flirtation aside: we'd do what we all enjoy to do already - shower one another with love! Think about the best moments in your life: in the company of precious friends; the companionship is awesome; the humour is joyous; the laughter bubbles; the atmosphere is fun-filled; not a callous word is dreamt of, let alone spoken; the generosity flows ("No you're not going to pay for that! I am!"); the dreams manifest themselves; sincerity and honesty are spoken; healing occurs; vulnerabilities are respected; each person's individuality is cherished; pep-talks and encouragements abound; people touch each other affectionately; we share what uplifts us most about each other; we respectfully suggest ways that we can each improve; we whirl in the surf; we climb into the rainforest canopy; we build treehouses and forts; we reform corrupt governments; we inspire the downtrodden and the successful alike; we revolutionise the world!

Oh. So you want to go to heaven.

As a direct answer to your question though: my God would love to remind His children of who He is, but the rules of the game prevent it. You see, once you enter life, you're in a test situation: the battle between good and evil, where you get to show your true colours. Just like coaches aren't allowed to communicate with players during the game, just so my God is not allowed to communicate with us during our time of testing.

So who's in charge of the game, and who made the rules?

What is a consciousness field, in relation to the universe of physical matter and energy?

In my opinion, all existence is material and consciousness is a far more subtle form of matter than, say, a rock. Out of consciousness, rocks manifest. There is no such thing as empty space, energy is everywhere, and all is connected.

[David Quinn]

A metaphysical thought can suddenly seem charged with the quality of eternal truth. A person's life can be utterly changed by it.

Okay, how about something mundane?

Since I believe God exists, I pray to him. My prayer takes many forms, as it is always going on. Voices in the head. These voices are sometimes silent. Prayer often takes the form of a dialogue, when I have something specific to ask about, or ask for. Some may call it contemplation as opposed to prayer. But then how do you explain this anecdote I'm going to tell you? I was sitting in my car in a supermarket parking lot in the town where I live. I was deep in "contemplation" about a personal matter, when it suddenly resolved itself, followed by the explicit thought: "Good, now drive up to the Wawa's (a local convenience store), there's a guy that needs a jump." So I pulled out of the parking lot, drove a few blocks to the convenience store, and right there was a black guy standing behind a battered Ford with the hood up, holding two jumper cables in his hand. The other end of the cables was already hooked up to his battery. He was just standing there like he was waiting for me. I gave him the jump start and off he went.

How am I supposed to explain that?

We could conclude that God likes playing tacky little games with his subjects. Or we could put it down to mere coincidence.

-

[brokenhead]

A metaphysical thought can suddenly seem charged with the quality of eternal truth. A person's life can be utterly changed by it.

Okay, how about something mundane?

Since I believe God exists, I pray to him. My prayer takes many forms, as it is always going on. Voices in the head. These voices are sometimes silent. Prayer often takes the form of a dialogue, when I have something specific to ask about, or ask for. Some may call it contemplation as opposed to prayer. But then how do you explain this anecdote I'm going to tell you? I was sitting in my car in a supermarket parking lot in the town where I live. I was deep in "contemplation" about a personal matter, when it suddenly resolved itself, followed by the explicit thought: "Good, now drive up to the Wawa's (a local convenience store), there's a guy that needs a jump." So I pulled out of the parking lot, drove a few blocks to the convenience store, and right there was a black guy standing behind a battered Ford with the hood up, holding two jumper cables in his hand. The other end of the cables was already hooked up to his battery. He was just standing there like he was waiting for me. I gave him the jump start and off he went.

How am I supposed to explain that?

We could conclude that God likes playing tacky little games with his subjects. Or we could put it down to mere coincidence.

-

This isn't the first or only time things like this have happened to me. I'm very conservative. I rarely act on hunches. I merely asked how I was supposed to explain this kind of occurrence. And this is your genius response? Let's break it down, shall we? You used these words: Playing. Who was playing? A guy was stuck and I helped him. God could not have been playing because you do not believe he exists. Games. Which is the fun part, David? Having a car battery die? I'll admit it was no big effort to help the guy, but it wasn't exactly fun like getting a blowjob, either. Tacky. Helping out a fellow human being is tacky? If you say so. Subjects. Since you are bereft of faith, the choice of this word instead of, say, "children," says more about you than about a putative God.

Then we have coincidence. Do you think for a second that I do not recognize a coincidence when I see one? That I perhaps have never seen a coincidence before, and suddenly when I do, I attribute magical qualities to it? I am 51 years old, David. I am fairly thick-skinned.

This is exactly why earnest_seeker is reluctant to "share" some things publicly, especially here. You know, the nice picnic in the yard with the slobbering pit bulls.

You are supposed to be a bit more on the ball, David. If you are going to be dismissive, at least be somewhat creative. You answered my post like a dullard. If you can't add something, then don't reply to the post.

[earnest_seeker]

Leyla's a wild one, but her heart is in the right place.

Oh, I know, she's really very sweet, it's just hard to remember that when she's got you tied up over the bull-ant heap smothered in honey, swearing that she'll never release you until you disavow your belief in a deity.

Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

Well here's the thing: you're singling out empirical phenomena, presumably to contrast them with what I've read you refer to - in, say, WOTI - as "logical truths". You make a neat dichotomy out of the two. I think that such a dichotomy is somewhat flawed though. Take, for example, your analysis of causality where you explain (I'm relating this from memory - it's been a while since I read WOTI) that a "thing" is caused by its components. Now imagine that you're simply a brain in a vat, with absolutely no sensory input, such that you cannot even have learnt language, and such that you are completely unaware of the usual bodily functions like breathing and a beating heart. In other words, you have no awareness of the physical world. How would you arrive at such a truth, having never observed a physical thing to know that it necessarily has components? Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that such a truth - like the question of whether God exists - is likewise an empirical matter: you arrived at it by observing physical reality through your senses.

What about timeless knowledge? Do you have any interest in that?

Yes, certainly (I would say "Of course" except that it might come across as overly dismissive).

If the evidence is good enough it should be able to withstand any attack.

It's like brokenhead wrote - I have no desire to be cut up and fed to the pit-bulls. Regardless of whether or not it's good enough, I would be pilloried, simply because there are committed athiests here who are invested in that belief and will adopt any means to justify it, and I have no desire to put myself in that situation - Leyla's brutality is more than enough to put myself through. Equally of concern to me, though, is that it would require revealing details of my private life that I do not wish to make publicly known. I am entitled to my privacy, I hope.

Altered states can be very insightful at times, but they can also mislead us terribly, mainly because we tend to bring our own emotional baggage and unresolved issues into the experience. The subconscious is quick to project all sorts of things out of this baggage, which the mind unwittingly takes to be real.

It is therefore wise never to trust anything experienced in an altered state.

I agree that a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thought is necessary when analysing altered-state experiences, but I also think that some of the things that one experiences in such a state are as real as those experienced in a normal state. I think that it's ill-advised to simply push it into the back of the cupboard and forget about it, on the assumption that it is caused by "emotional baggage and unresolved issues". Sometimes these experiences give us clues about the nature of reality - clues that are unavailable to us in a normal state.

I agree with Kevin that it is impossible to have a boundary without something existing on either side of it, but I'm not sure that he is arguing from this that the universe is infinite in extent. For example, it could be that the universe is curved in such a manner that it is both finite in extent and impossible for us to ever reach its end.

I seem to recall that in that thread such an argument was put to Kevin and his response was something like "If space were curved then there would have to be higher dimensions within which it was curved, and hence the universe would be physically infinite in those higher dimensions". It was put back to him that, rather than being curved, the universe might simply map in a mathematical-like fashion back onto itself, such that no higher dimensions were required, and as far as I recall, Kevin never responded to that possibility.

But this is all speculation, as we can never know the truth of it. Even if we do find that the universe is curved in such a manner, we can never rule out the possibility that there are other universes beyond our own curved one.

Indeed.

More importantly, the issue is irrelevant from a spiritual perspective because we are talking about appearances here and thus about fleeting illusions that Nature whips up in every moment. As such, our ability to comprehend the nature of Realiity doesn't depend on our resolving this issue.

Here, again, you cast a judgement as to which truths about Reality are most important. I suppose that you justify it by saying that some truths are "absolute" whereas others are transitory. Again, I'd say that the line demarcating the two is in some ways arbitrary or at least a little fuzzy. Would you agree?

Reality is formless, meaning that it cannot be captured or contained within a finite form.

I mustn't be understanding you correctly, because at face value that statement seems to me to be flagrantly false. I am a part of reality, and I have a form. A rock is a part of reality, and a rock has form. Without form, there is nothing to be conscious of, and yet we are conscious of things.

It is infinite in the sense that it is entirely without form.

Can you explain to me the connection that you're making between "finite" and "form"?

We probably have different conceptions of what it means to be conscious.

Quite probably. I don't limit my understanding of consciousness as being the awareness (and practice) of the philosophy to which you subscribe. As far as I'm concerned, people can be conscious in many different ways.

My dead-pan reply to your rather obvious satire was itself tongue-in-cheek.

Ah, subtlety. I missed it but I like it in retrospect.

I would say that only a few people are on the path of knowledge. Most are on the path of satisfying their egotistical needs at the expense of gaining knowledge. They live like animals and then they die.

My understanding is that most people give up on the path of knowledge reasonably early in life because it seems impossible to ever know anything beyond the basics for sure. They decide to focus on living a decent and comfortable life, rather than on philosophising. The spark of curiosity never quite leaves them though, which is why miracle-working and New Age books are so popular, and why there are so many conversions to religions.

However, Anna, being a woman, doesn't want to exclude anybody.

God bless her for her inclusiveness.

David: I also find it interesting that she wants to become a "companion" of God, which suggests that she still conceives of spirtuality in terms of having an emotional relationship with another.

earnest: I don't remember reading where she wrote that. Either way is fine with me: for example, you have spiritual companions in Dan and Kevin, and that doesn't detract from your own spirituality.

David: It would if I regarded either Kevin or Dan as a supreme being and perfomed all my spiritual effort for the purpose of getting intimate and close to him.

Ah, I see. Personally, I believe that emotional relationships can be spiritual. I'm no etymologist, but my understanding is that the root of the word "spirit" has something to do with an essence, and thus the essential relationship between two essences fits within the bounds of the word "spirituality".

-----------

Anna: reply forthcoming.

[DHodges]

Then we have coincidence. Do you think for a second that I do not recognize a coincidence when I see one? That I perhaps have never seen a coincidence before, and suddenly when I do, I attribute magical qualities to it? I am 51 years old, David. I am fairly thick-skinned.

If you had gotten to the Wawa and there was no one there, would you be posting on the internet about it? Or would you have just forgotten about it and gone on with your day?

[Dan Rowden]

Can you explain to me the connection that you're making between "finite" and "form"?

If Genius News were still being published, this would be the "Twilight Zone" quote of the edition.

[brokenhead]

Then we have coincidence. Do you think for a second that I do not recognize a coincidence when I see one? That I perhaps have never seen a coincidence before, and suddenly when I do, I attribute magical qualities to it? I am 51 years old, David. I am fairly thick-skinned.

If you had gotten to the Wawa and there was no one there, would you be posting on the internet about it? Or would you have just forgotten about it and gone on with your day?

But that is a stupid question, Dave. If I got there and no one was there, why would I post about it? That would mean I would post about every time I drove into a Wawa's. The point is, the guy was there. And I did hear a voice telling me to go there because he would be. Are you saying that I hear that voice telling me all the time that there is a guy waiting for me with jumper cables and this time it just turned out to be true, so I wrote about it? I thought it was implied in the story that this was a one-time, specific, out-of-the-ordinary occurrence. Maybe you were too dense to infer that. So for the record, this was a startling thing that happened to me. It happened a while ago, so I didn't rush to post it, but decided to do so now because it is salient to our topic. It is qualitatively different from ordinarily experienced coincidences. If it had happened to you, you would not be so quick to dismiss it. I'm pretty sure that if you actually thought about it, you would see this.

[David Quinn]

We could conclude that God likes playing tacky little games with his subjects. Or we could put it down to mere coincidence.

This isn't the first or only time things like this have happened to me. I'm very conservative. I rarely act on hunches. I merely asked how I was supposed to explain this kind of occurrence. And this is your genius response? Let's break it down, shall we? You used these words: Playing. Who was playing? A guy was stuck and I helped him. God could not have been playing because you do not believe he exists. Games. Which is the fun part, David? Having a car battery die? I'll admit it was no big effort to help the guy, but it wasn't exactly fun like getting a blowjob, either. Tacky. Helping out a fellow human being is tacky? If you say so. Subjects. Since you are bereft of faith, the choice of this word instead of, say, "children," says more about you than about a putative God.

To think of yourself as a child of an Almighty God is rather egotistical, don't you think?

In truth, all things are children of God. All things are made in His image.

I find the Christrian conception of God tacky because it involves a large conscious being playing taunting games with us lowly humans. When he is not glibly inflicting unimaginable suffering on us, he taunts us with oblique games of hide and seek, such as in the manner you describe above, with the expectation that we should not only find this acceptable but that we should love him. In humans, such behaviour would be regarded as evidence of a severe psychiatric illness and worthy of being locked away in an institution. With the cartoon-like god that Christians create, it is somehow transformed into sane, desirable behaviour.

Then we have coincidence. Do you think for a second that I do not recognize a coincidence when I see one?

By the sounds of it, you are able to recognize some categories of coincidence, while being blind to others. Coincidences, by their nature, can sometimes be startling and seemingly inexplicable. But there is no magic power involved. It is simply the laws of probability in operation.

People whose minds are more scattered and ill-disciplined tend to have a wider variety of random, mundane thoughts popping into their brains - such as, "I'll now drive up to the local store, as there's a guy that needs a jump." - and thus there is a greater chance for strange coincidences to occur in their lives. And because they are scattered and ill-disciplined they are more likely to falsely conclude that these coincidences are magical or supernatural in nature. Particularly if they have an emotional need to believe in a supernatural god.

-

[Carl G]

Sorry, David, that seems like just amateur psychology to me. Coincidence explains a lot, but not necessarily everything. It's along the same lines Kevin likes to speak, about all the wishful thinking that drives people, and his theories of the motivations behind people's beliefs. True, it does, and yeah, there's delusion a'plenty, but logically that doesn't necessarily cover all cases, and to argue implying that it does, well, it just seems...amateurish.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm confused as to how the fact, in itself, of "coincidence" can be explicatory.

[David Quinn]

Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

Well here's the thing: you're singling out empirical phenomena, presumably to contrast them with what I've read you refer to - in, say, WOTI - as "logical truths". You make a neat dichotomy out of the two. I think that such a dichotomy is somewhat flawed though. Take, for example, your analysis of causality where you explain (I'm relating this from memory - it's been a while since I read WOTI) that a "thing" is caused by its components.

More accurately, its components are part of a countless array of causes which contribute to its creation. But do continue ....

Now imagine that you're simply a brain in a vat, with absolutely no sensory input, such that you cannot even have learnt language, and such that you are completely unaware of the usual bodily functions like breathing and a beating heart. In other words, you have no awareness of the physical world. How would you arrive at such a truth, having never observed a physical thing to know that it necessarily has components? Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that such a truth - like the question of whether God exists - is likewise an empirical matter: you arrived at it by observing physical reality through your senses.

Not really, no.

True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation.

I trust you see the difference.

Sense information can stimulate the mind into logical thought, but it can't provide the proof that a logical truth is in fact true.

If the evidence is good enough it should be able to withstand any attack.

It's like brokenhead wrote - I have no desire to be cut up and fed to the pit-bulls. Regardless of whether or not it's good enough, I would be pilloried, simply because there are committed athiests here who are invested in that belief and will adopt any means to justify it, and I have no desire to put myself in that situation - Leyla's brutality is more than enough to put myself through. Equally of concern to me, though, is that it would require revealing details of my private life that I do not wish to make publicly known. I am entitled to my privacy, I hope.

That's your choice. But it means none of us have any reason to accept that you have evidence for an alien god.

It is therefore wise never to trust anything experienced in an altered state.

I agree that a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thought is necessary when analysing altered-state experiences, but I also think that some of the things that one experiences in such a state are as real as those experienced in a normal state. I think that it's ill-advised to simply push it into the back of the cupboard and forget about it, on the assumption that it is caused by "emotional baggage and unresolved issues". Sometimes these experiences give us clues about the nature of reality - clues that are unavailable to us in a normal state.

I'm not saying that we should automatically dismiss everything experienced in altered states, only that we should treat these experiences as suspect unless they are verified by reason and a true knowledge of reality. Otherwise, you're just building your house on sand.

In the end, though, enlightened knowledge of reality goes beyond all states, altered or otherwise, and doesn't depend on the presence or absence of a particular experience, profound or otherwise.

More importantly, the issue is irrelevant from a spiritual perspective because we are talking about appearances here and thus about fleeting illusions that Nature whips up in every moment. As such, our ability to comprehend the nature of Realiity doesn't depend on our resolving this issue.

Here, again, you cast a judgement as to which truths about Reality are most important. I suppose that you justify it by saying that some truths are "absolute" whereas others are transitory. Again, I'd say that the line demarcating the two is in some ways arbitrary or at least a little fuzzy. Would you agree?

Not at all. The difference between an absolute truth and a transitory truth is as stark as stark can be. A truth is either impossible to falsify or it isn't. There can be no mixing of the two.

Reality is formless, meaning that it cannot be captured or contained within a finite form.

I mustn't be understanding you correctly, because at face value that statement seems to me to be flagrantly false. I am a part of reality, and I have a form. A rock is a part of reality, and a rock has form. Without form, there is nothing to be conscious of, and yet we are conscious of things.

Water can be molded into an infinite variety of shapes precisely because it has no shape.

It is infinite in the sense that it is entirely without form.

Can you explain to me the connection that you're making between "finite" and "form"?

A form can only exist by virtue of being distinguishable from other forms, meaning that it has a beginning/end and therefore is finite in extent.

We probably have different conceptions of what it means to be conscious.

Quite probably. I don't limit my understanding of consciousness as being the awareness (and practice) of the philosophy to which you subscribe. As far as I'm concerned, people can be conscious in many different ways.

They can be, but unless they have removed all of their delusions and therefore become conscious of the nature of reality, they are still very limited and narrow in their consciousness, whatever the form it has. A child can be conscious in all sorts of different ways, and yet he is relatively unconscious compared to an adult. An adult, in turn, is relatively unconscious compared to an enlightened sage.

If you have no awareness of what it means to become an enlightened sage, then it is quite understandable that you would regard adult forms of consciousness, in all their variety, as being all there is and that women are highly conscious creatures.

I would say that only a few people are on the path of knowledge. Most are on the path of satisfying their egotistical needs at the expense of gaining knowledge. They live like animals and then they die.

My understanding is that most people give up on the path of knowledge reasonably early in life because it seems impossible to ever know anything beyond the basics for sure. They decide to focus on living a decent and comfortable life, rather than on philosophising. The spark of curiosity never quite leaves them though, which is why miracle-working and New Age books are so popular, and why there are so many conversions to religions.

It's far too late by then. And most of them are not really looking for knowledge and enlightenment by this stage, but rather peace, companionship and a more refined emotional existence.

However, Anna, being a woman, doesn't want to exclude anybody.

God bless her for her inclusiveness.

Even though it involves wishful thinking?

earnest: I don't remember reading where she wrote that. Either way is fine with me: for example, you have spiritual companions in Dan and Kevin, and that doesn't detract from your own spirituality.

David: It would if I regarded either Kevin or Dan as a supreme being and perfomed all my spiritual effort for the purpose of getting intimate and close to him.

Ah, I see. Personally, I believe that emotional relationships can be spiritual. I'm no etymologist, but my understanding is that the root of the word "spirit" has something to do with an essence, and thus the essential relationship between two essences fits within the bounds of the word "spirituality".

Haha. You're really clutching at straws there.

-

[David Quinn]

Sorry, David, that seems like just amateur psychology to me. Coincidence explains a lot, but not necessarily everything. It's along the same lines Kevin likes to speak, about all the wishful thinking that drives people, and his theories of the motivations behind people's beliefs. True, it does, and yeah, there's delusion a'plenty, but logically that doesn't necessarily cover all cases, and to argue implying that it does, well, it just seems...amateurish.

I'm not necessarily saying it does cover all cases (in other words, I'm open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena), but I do have high standards when it comes to evidence for these things. In my experience, the paranormal agenda is mostly driven by very flakey people who are easily satisfied with dubious evidence. When you have intelligent people like Susan Blackmore, James Randi, and Derren Brown who have all investigated the subject with a scientific thoroughness and yet come away empty-handed, it doesn't look good.

Also, scientific research has shown that most people have a very poor understanding of the laws of probabilities and severely underestimate the power of chance.

-

[Carl G]

I don't find James Randi to be all that intelligent. For one thing, I believe one of the psychic phenomena for which he is offering the million dollars for a verifiable instance is 'remote viewing'. Apparently he doesn't know that both the Russian and United States military perfected these as a form of espionage in the 60s. That's not "scientific thoroughness."

The Amazing Randi was a pretty good escape artist in his day, though.

[brokenhead]

But there is no magic power involved. It is simply the laws of probability in operation.

I sincerely doubt you have a grasp of the laws of probability.

I never said anything about magic.

People whose minds are more scattered and ill-disciplined tend to have a wider variety of random, mundane thoughts popping into their brains

This is precisely what I was not doing, David. I was focused in on a personal problem. Focused. Then, as the problem was resolving in my mind, that was when the thought occurred to me. It served to put an exclamation point on the resolution.

You are using a probabalistic argument to explain my "mere coincidence." In order for your argument to have any merit, you have constructed a sample population of thoughts that I must be having, when indeed you have no way of knowing what goes on in my head or anyone else's. You are supposing that I have many similar thoughts on a regular basis (I do not) and this one just so happened to coincide with reality. Do you really believe that? Your probablistic "explanation" is rather flimsy. Again, if such a synchronicity had happened to you, you would have to do better than that.

Ah, go down a pint of Guinness. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You say no two things are causally independent of each other. No two things except these two, because that might be evidence of a Higher Mind at work. I don't know why I keep expecting so much more from you, David. You are rather afraid, I think.

[David Quinn]

I don't find James Randi to be all that intelligent. For one thing, I believe one of the psychic phenomena for which he is offering the million dollars for a verifiable instance is 'remote viewing'. Apparently he doesn't know that both the Russian and United States military perfected these as a form of espionage in the 60s. That's not "scientific thoroughness."

Why has nobody used this technique to claim the prize then?

-

[Carl G]

That is a separate question, for which I do not have an answer. The question does not negate the issue of Randi's intelligence. I am not an expert on the military programs but I've read enough over the years to believe they existed.

Actually, if I had demonstrable psychic power I rather doubt I would subject myself to Randi's organization, even for hope of the sweepstakes he promises.

[earnest_seeker]

Hey Anna,

Earnest, your reply reminds me of an argument I had with my niece when she was a girl.

I bet that I'm not quite as cute and endearing as your niece though.

When you admit that you don't know the substance of your soul, how do you then insist that it is possible for it to be created wise without any process, or that such a wisdom is worth having?

Well, you believe that God is wise without a process, and that His wisdom is worth having, right? There's your precedent for non-magical inherent wisdom right there.

All the while that the bloke is suffering and the torturer accruing negative karma, there is also total purity and innocence. Sure, neither of them is aware of it, but perhaps you can become aware of it.

I gather that you mean in the sense that "the world is proceeding as it should".

But I didn't really mean you alone. I meant that humanity will stop suffering from man's inhumanity to man when man stops treating one another inhumanely. As long as the possibility exists for evil and delusion, the freedom to explore it must be there, otherwise we are controlled.

But I keep on telling you: when you analyse it carefully we are "controlled" anyway, no matter what. There are certain things that it is not in our nature to do, that we are biased against: this is a way in which our wills are not "free" but are constrained. You argue that it is because we have learnt our lessons. Fine, but then why would an omnipotent God put in place this system where we have to learn lessons through suffering? Why not just cut to the chase and build us with all of our lessons learnt from the start, and avoid a whole heap of suffering?

Haven't you seen the Matrix? Those people were happy. And that is the God you aspire to have, if he were omnipotent!

The difference is that in the Matrix there was another higher reality in which evil things were happening. Under my proposal, there would be no other higher reality: all would be well in ultimate reality.

It's all about personal responsibility, not whining and looking outside oneself to be fixed.

Oh dear. First Leyla accuses me of whining and now you do. Can you recognise the difference between whining and arguing a point / making an observation?

Perhaps I have learned my lesson.

See above on the need to learn lessons given an omnipotent God.

You will be free of that desire [the desire to sin] when you have made a long series of choices and then you will be real.

Why would I be any less real if I were - like God - intrinsically perfect without that process? (please remember that this is from an if-then perspective. I'm not trying to say that "this is the way that it should be", I'm saying that "this is the way that it would be given an omnipotent God")

You have no idea whether, under such a circumstance, you would have creative power. What is creative power? I don't know and neither do you.

Oh, I don't know its source, but I can describe it. Creative power is that which inspires great works of art, witty come-backs, inspiring new engineering works, etc.

earnest: The conversation moved on, but had I had the opportunity to answer her, I would have said: "All that means is that your morality is the means by which God has constrained your will."

Iolaus: Why do you think God has constrained her will? Why not her own self?

Well sure, it could be herself. But if God is omnipotent, then He is capable of overriding her choice, isn't He? In that sense, her constraints are God's constraints: He allows her to learn whatever lessons she needs to learn; He refrains from intervening when she decides upon which moral constraints she wishes to accept. He could equally have decided "No, my child, you have not gone far enough yet", and imposed a stronger morality upon her mind, couldn't He?

earnest: Forgive me for saying it, but your thinking on this issue appears to be confused to say the least. For example: you don't seem to be clear on whether you believe that God precedes existence or whether He is existence.

Iolaus: I have been quite clear. The fundamental attribute of God is existence. Everything else flows from that. Yes, God is existence itself. God is The Only Existent One.

OK, so if God is existence, then you seem to be advocating some variant of pantheism. At the same time, though, you seem to be promoting the view that God existed before the universe did. So are you saying that God existed first, and then expanded His "body" into what we now know as the universe?

Iolaus: The most logical answer is not that any entity is unredeemable.

Why?

earnest: Well there are those who believe that we are each literally God, viewing Himself through different windows. Are you amenable to that belief?

Iolaus: Yes, but there is always a yes, but.

Please elaborate.

earnest: There's a difference, though, between a slap on the bum or a bit of minor discomfort, and much of the harsh, unconscionable suffering that exists in the world today: people starving to death; people dying of slow, painful diseases like cancer; people tortured to death for voting the wrong way in an election - in what way are these "little pain"s helping them to become better people?

Iolaus: We're a bunch of assholes in hell here, and it looks like we're pretty hard headed. It's all a choice. You're not blaming God for inflicting these idiocies upon us, are you?

Well if God were omnipotent, He needn't let those idiocies stand, need He?

I think that the stories in the Bible of Jehovah saying this or that, planning this or that, sending this or that - is utter nonsense. I think that the God of this universe would never even use language. He's way beyond that.

I disagree (about God never using language), but I don't really care to debate it, I'm just stating my disagreement.

earnest: Why are we not, then - assuming an omnipotent God - born with the knowledge of good and evil already, or at least with the innate skill to discern the difference?

Iolaus: The question has nothing to do with omnipotence. Perhaps we don't discern well because we are in a situation here that is very confusing, and we are operating on a low level of functioning.

My point was that if God were omnipotent, then He would have created us such that we weren't confused, and were operating on a high level of functioning. He wants the best for us, right?

But we are back now to my niece and her insistence on magic. You want God to make something to heavy for him to lift, or make a square circle.

You're claiming that it's impossible to create humans who are already perfect, but as I've written previously, there is precedent for it in that God - as you view him to the best of my knowledge - is supposedly perfect without following any path to get there.

If that means he is not omnipotent, then perhaps there is no such thing.

Omnipotence is a tricky concept. I don't really think that it makes much sense.

earnest: I also hope that by now you already know my own answer: because the assumption is wrong, and God simply does not have the power to do it.

Iolaus: But not because there is an equally existent evil being he can't control. But because that might just be how reality works.

OK, our beliefs are simply different then.

Iolaus: Something as basic as the experience of evil would be hard to do if there were no chance of it or occurrences of it.

earnest: I presume that by "do" you mean "imagine"; going forward on that basis: it would be no harder than to imagine time travel into the past, which plenty of us do quite easily.

Iolaus: No, it would be hard to imagine, and hard to have much impact if someone presented the idea. Your examples are not far off from our actual experience, but if we had never known or seen, nor had anyone else known or seen, any bit of meanness, we would have little reason to imagine it, and it would just make us laugh or ignore the uninteresting idea if it were presented.

We disagree here then.

I meant, the game is not so bad. Your piece gets removed from the board, or imprisoned, but there is no death and besides, the man in the wheelchair - maybe he was Beria? Maybe he agreed before he was born to work off some negative karma from all those people he shot while they cried?

Now am I advocating you ever think such a thing when you see someone in an unfortunate situation? God forbid! That would mean you have not understood your lessons. Is that contradictory? Only at one level of perception.

Or hey, maybe he's a whatchamacallit, who has passed beyond the need for birth or death, but has come back to help some of us learn compassion, and he's just hanging out doing us this great service?

Fair enough, my question remains though (and it's starting to get a little repetitious now, so I might leave it at this): why is all of this suffering necessary given an all-powerful God?

earnest: This statement contains a contradiction. If God can't create an illogical universe then He is bound by logic, and can't have created it. Therefore God is not the source of logic, therefore He is not the source of all things. This is simply a more explicit manifestation of the contradiction that I noted in my previous post.

Iolaus: Reality is all of a piece. God didn't create logic like a piece of clay that could have made a cup or could have made a saucer. Logic is an attribute of God.

According to you, though, God is everything, so everything is an attribute of God, right?

earnest: You of course can't countenance it because you believe that God is the source of all things, which would make Him the source of eternal damnation - impossible to believe!I on the other hand believe that evil is in some senses beyond God's control, such that all sorts of horrible things are possible. Not that God simply accepts those things - He does all in His power to prevent them, but His power is limited.

Iolaus: Wow, that's an interesting world you live in. Perhaps these warring beings are not God, but other entities.

It comes down to one's definition of God, then. Clearly it's a somewhat flexible word.

How would these evil beings keep a soul burning eternally? What kind of burning?

I don't know, I can only guess. Probably the burning of flames which never exhaust their supply of fuel.

Why can't they get out?

Why can't you get out of a locked jail cell?

Why can't God go there?

Probably He can, but it's enemy territory, and the enemy has power too.

Where did these beings come from?

Where did your God come from? Where did the Totality come from? These are questions that I have never seen a good answer to.

What is your definition of God? What entitles your God to that name?

This is similar to a question that Leyla asked me, and which I refused to answer her given the way that she approached me. I'll answer you, though, because you've shown me good faith. My provisional definition of God is "the being with the highest power to do good, and who is the model for perfection". As to what entitles my God to that name - it seems to fit within the scope of how the word is generally used. It's at least closer to what is traditionally (i.e. in the Judeo-Christian paradigm) known as God than the idea that QRS have that God is the Totality: their "God" isn't even conscious, nor is it good.

Iolaus: But what would we do in the bridal chamber??

earnest: You mean you and me specifically? I've got a lively imagination - I could explain at length if you're interested, but this forum is neither the time nor place.

Iolaus: Oh, no, no, no. You have misunderstood!

I understood you perfectly, I just rarely miss an opportunity to flirt. I consider it similar to paying people compliments: they generally appreciate it. I do understand that it makes some people uncomfortable, so if you're in that category then let me know and I'll hold my tongue in future.

The bridal chamber of the Lord, the one Jesus spoke of, the one he said that while many were standing around wanting to get in, only those who are alone will get in. The one where only wise virgins are accepted. The one where God ravishes you if you let him, and you learn a thing or two.

I'm not familiar with this particular bridal chamber. Where did you read of it?

Oh. So you want to go to heaven.

Well, duh. :-) Not whilst other people are suffering and I can do something about it, though.

So who's in charge of the game, and who made the rules?

I have no idea. How did your God come to be, and who made the rules of logic?

[earnest_seeker]

True, observing things through the senses is a necessary catalyst for provoking the mind into seeking logical truths. However, the proof of a logical truth cannot be found in such observation.

I trust you see the difference.

Perhaps you could elaborate using the example that I started out with: that the components of a thing are causes of it.

That's your choice. But it means none of us have any reason to accept that you have evidence for an alien god.

Sure, and I don't expect you to - all that I expect is for you to acknowledge that it's a possibility.

The difference between an absolute truth and a transitory truth is as stark as stark can be. A truth is either impossible to falsify or it isn't. There can be no mixing of the two.

In the context of the ongoing thread, "Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?", how can you ever know that a truth is impossible to falsify?

David: Reality is formless, meaning that it cannot be captured or contained within a finite form.

earnest: I mustn't be understanding you correctly, because at face value that statement seems to me to be flagrantly false. I am a part of reality, and I have a form. A rock is a part of reality, and a rock has form. Without form, there is nothing to be conscious of, and yet we are conscious of things.

David: Water can be molded into an infinite variety of shapes precisely because it has no shape.

Implicit in that statement is the notion of "the shape of water", which occurs in "infinite varieties". Therefore water has form, therefore reality has form.

earnest: Can you explain to me the connection that you're making between "finite" and "form"?

David: A form can only exist by virtue of being distinguishable from other forms, meaning that it has a beginning/end and therefore is finite in extent.

Perhaps "a" form implies "finite", but what about just "form"? What I really want to know, though, is how you define "form". I'm assuming that you mean something similar to "structure". Is that correct?

If you have no awareness of what it means to become an enlightened sage, then it is quite understandable that you would regard adult forms of consciousness, in all their variety, as being all there is and that women are highly conscious creatures.

Please describe for me what it means to become an enlightened sage.

David: However, Anna, being a woman, doesn't want to exclude anybody.

earnest_seeker: God bless her for her inclusiveness.

David: Even though it involves wishful thinking?

I'd like you to outline how you see her thinking as wishful in this context before I answer that.

Haha. You're really clutching at straws there.

Lucky there are so many of them lying around from all of the strawmen that get constructed in these parts.