Author Topic: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?  (Read 2172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Darwins +31/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2013, 08:48:23 PM »
As usual, your near sighted approach, sees you all Barking up the wrong tree.  The fundamental error is that you think this thing called Go(o)d has to be a being of some sort. Correctly you acknowledge that this cannot be so. Yet you still persist in going round and round on the issue. So obviously, your either not satisfied with your own position (still seeking understanding) or your trying to convert others to your tribe. What's the stats on that by the way?

Try thinking about this thing called Go(o)d without personification. Let it be what ever common sense wills. Now it can be, just a Go(o)d wolf. A metaphor for joy, love, peace, humility, kindness, authentic selflessness etc...
 
“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”

And philosophers, religious folk, spiritualist etc.. are all talking about these wolves and adding the MAGIc because we also are blessed with creative imaginations.

Much ado about nothing really, particularly if you consider the role of meditation in the authentic stuff   :-)

By changing definitions and shifting goalposts you can have a god be anything you want, ergo a god or gods do exist, well your version of a god at least.

Correct. Now prove these things aren't Go(o)d and that they don't exist. :-)
Thanks.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6471
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2013, 08:49:40 PM »
earetheconomyspirit

You really need to feed your curiosity and go to our quote thread, where it teaches you how to do it right. Reading stuff like the above without the quotes properly displayed is a pain in the butt. The butt being the only part I ever feed.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16778.0.html
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2013, 09:04:44 PM »
earetheconomyspirit

You really need to feed your curiosity and go to our quote thread, where it teaches you how to do it right. Reading stuff like the above without the quotes properly displayed is a pain in the butt. The butt being the only part I ever feed.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16778.0.html

Will do, thanks 

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2013, 09:23:24 PM »
As usual, your near sighted approach, sees you all Barking up the wrong tree.  The fundamental error is that you think this thing called Go(o)d has to be a being of some sort. Correctly you acknowledge that this cannot be so. Yet you still persist in going round and round on the issue. So obviously, your either not satisfied with your own position (still seeking understanding) or your trying to convert others to your tribe. What's the stats on that by the way?

Try thinking about this thing called Go(o)d without personification. Let it be what ever common sense wills. Now it can be, just a Go(o)d wolf. A metaphor for joy, love, peace, humility, kindness, authentic selflessness etc...
 
“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”

And philosophers, religious folk, spiritualist etc.. are all talking about these wolves and adding the MAGIc because we also are blessed with creative imaginations.

Much ado about nothing really, particularly if you consider the role of meditation in the authentic stuff   :-)

By changing definitions and shifting goalposts you can have a god be anything you want, ergo a god or gods do exist, well your version of a god at least.

Correct. Now prove these things aren't good and that they don't exist. Better  :-)

Or perhaps you'd be willing to concede they do exist. In that case my question becomes are they good?

If we agree on that point. Then the remaining issue will be, are they related to this thing called Go(o)d. Who cares. What's important is being Go(o)d because ultimately the knowing is personal and comes from the experiences that extend from being Go(o)d  or being selfish or egotistical. In other words the meaning of these things is confined to personal experience. Words fail the interpreter of the experience as much as the listeners lack of experience or immaturity.   

« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 09:32:22 PM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1431
  • Darwins +52/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2013, 02:32:21 AM »
Correct. Now prove these things aren't Go(o)d and that they don't exist. :-)
The burden is yours, to prove they are.

And please stop joining god and good. In Ancient Greek "God" is "Theos", in Hebrew its "YHWH" and the name for "Good" in Greek is "Agathos" in Hebrew "TOBH". They are not the same word.  Nor do they have the same meaning.
You are using the mythology of holy books, to make your case and God in those is certainly not good.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2013, 03:24:32 AM »
Correct. Now prove these things aren't Go(o)d and that they don't exist. :-)
The burden is yours, to prove they are.

No it's not. I state that these things are good. If you say they are not, we are in dispute and then we can enter a phase of proof. So are love and joy and all  things associated by this Indian good things. Putting my word form aside for a minute. :-)

“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”

If we agree they are good, we have no dispute. In terms of whether they are Go(o)d derived, I present the wisdom of the Cherokee and suggest that this is synonymous with many religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions. And therefore these things can be equated to this thing called Go(o)d for want of a better metaphor.

Quote
And please stop joining god and good. In Ancient Greek "God" is "Theos", in Hebrew its "YHWH" and the name for "Good" in Greek is "Agathos" in Hebrew "TOBH". They are not the same word.  Nor do they have the same meaning.
I think they do.
 
Quote
You are using the mythology of holy books, to make your case and God in those is certainly not good.
No I'm not. I only reference the Gospel of Thomas as an authentic interpretation of Jesus. Note: this i not a view held by Rome's Christianity. Whilst the Biblical record, both NT and OT, hold some valid wisdom, they also hold a lot of corruptions designed to service Empire.  You have to watch those assumptions, me thinks.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2013, 04:41:20 AM »
Correct. Now prove these things aren't Go(o)d and that they don't exist. :-)
The burden is yours, to prove they are.

No it's not. I state that these things are good.

You may not like the idea of having to prove something but this is the way of the world. Allow me to quote from Pianodwarf:

Quote
It's a burden of proof issue.  […] the one claiming a [positive] is making a claim that extends ontology, and such claims always carry a greater burden of proof than claims that an ontological extension does not exist. – Pianodwarf

Quote
So are love and joy and all  things associated by this Indian good things. Putting my word form aside for a minute. :-)

“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”

I see that you are quite keen on this piece of folklore as you have seen fit to post it elsewhere. You, however, will be the first to admit that there are difficulties with it and thus it really states nothing.

The first problem is that “good” and “evil” have been emotively personified for the purpose of propaganda – imagine the wolves being replaced by “cute puppies”: a different image arises.

The second is that there is no attribution to the story. This is important. The reader really wants to know what sort of a life the “old grandfather” led. Did he keep to his own advice? How do we know? Do the Cherokee have a list of revered philosophers?

However, the real problem, to which you are apparently blind, is “How do we know which wolf is which?” We know that “good” and “evil” are subjective and we each have our own ideas. In the extreme, “good” and “evil” are pretty clear but the devil is in the detail – where is the line?

You, of course, are fortunate. This distinction has been mysteriously revealed to you and you can pronounce upon each and every action to say whether it is “good” or “evil”.

Can you supply a broad guide to help the rest of us?

Quote
I present the wisdom of the Cherokee

It’s a bit limited isn’t it? Are you keen on believing the words of primitive peoples? (You apparently are, as you rely heavily on the writings of a discarded ‘gospel’ author.)

Quote
suggest that this is synonymous with many religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions. And therefore these things can be equated to this thing called Go(o)d for want of a better metaphor.

1.   The “and therefore” is a non-sequitur. There is no “therefore” about it. It is this lack of critical thinking that lets you down and why you are unwilling to expose your ideas to the light of supporting evidence.

2.   “Go(o)d” -> do you think that is clever? It is certainly vague and, like the battling wolves, it leaves everything open to personal interpretation.

Quote
Quote
In Ancient Greek "God" is "Theos", in Hebrew its "YHWH" and the name for "Good" in Greek is "Agathos" in Hebrew "TOBH". They are not the same word.  Nor do they have the same meaning.
I think they do.

“I think they do.” -> Not much of an argument is it?
 
Quote
Quote
You are using the mythology of holy books, to make your case and God in those is certainly not good.
No I'm not. I only reference the Gospel of Thomas as an authentic interpretation of Jesus.

Which is a source of mythology and, for you, “a holy book.” It is certainly part of the circular reasoning of your inexplicable stance.

Look, EES, we would like some consistency here. We would also like something other than your word. We would like some of the harder questions answered.

Let me tell you a folktale:

“An old Blackfoot pulled out his iPad and opened a Word document. “Look,” he said to his grandson, “here is an interesting quote that I’ve saved: “There is a desire to understand the world inside us all. There are people who think that the answer is held in books of folklore whose stories were made up by Stone Aged civilisations. These people have little experience of critical thinking. They would sit in a darkened tepee and work out an answer without reference to the real world. You can find them on the internet telling you that they alone have the answer. You will find that they don’t because they don’t have all the questions or data. They just want to have everyone be like them. But they do not know who they are. They are a dime a dozen.”

The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, how shall I know these people?”

The old man scrolled down the page and quietly replied. “They are the ones who have confused ideas; they are the ones who speak in parables; they are the ones who invent new words and give other words vague meanings that only they know; they are the ones who do not employ critical thinking. They are the ones who think only they know the truth. Shun them as you would a leper with cholera.”

Quote
Note: this is not a view held by Rome's Christianity. Whilst the Biblical record, both NT and OT, hold some valid wisdom, they also hold a lot of corruptions designed to service Empire.  You have to watch those assumptions, me thinks.

So you say you are right and the purveyors of Rome's Christianity say they are right. How are we to know who is telling the truth?

(PS ‘methinks’ is one word)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 07:45:55 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2013, 07:57:59 AM »
The first problem is that “good” and “evil” have been emotively personified for the purpose of propaganda – imagine the wolves being replaced by “cute puppies”: a different image arises.

In my first post I wanted to ask if the wolf was replaced by a jellyfish, would the metaphor still work?

Didn't have the time to work it in, but glad to see you bring it up.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2013, 06:34:26 PM »
Whoops, note to self,  need to check other posts
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 06:36:54 PM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2013, 07:22:10 PM »
Correct. Now prove these things aren't Go(o)d and that they don't exist. :-)
The burden is yours, to prove they are.

No it's not. I state that these things are good.

You may not like the idea of having to prove something but this is the way of the world. Allow me to quote from Pianodwarf:

Quote
It's a burden of proof issue.  […] the one claiming a [positive] is making a claim that extends ontology, and such claims always carry a greater burden of proof than claims that an ontological extension does not exist. – Pianodwarf

Quote
So are love and joy and all  things associated by this Indian good things. Putting my word form aside for a minute. :-)

“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”
The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”

I see that you are quite keen on this piece of folklore as you have seen fit to post it elsewhere. You, however, will be the first to admit that there are difficulties with it and thus it really states nothing.
No I will not. You need to show cause first. Let's see how we go.

Quote
The first problem is that “good” and “evil” have been emotively personified for the purpose of propaganda – imagine the wolves being replaced by “cute puppies”: a different image arises.

The image I suspect was deliberate, agreed. No issue so far. Newspapers use tricks to grab attention. The idea of cute puppies is a red herring. Shame on you. Let's just agree that it was designed for attention shall we. No harm in that I say.
   
Quote
The second is that there is no attribution to the story. This is important. The reader really wants to know what sort of a life the “old grandfather” led. Did he keep to his own advice? How do we know? Do the Cherokee have a list of revered philosophers?

Quote
If you've read Plato's "the republic" you may see that there is a  connection between this traditional wisdom and the conclusion Plato draws about the character of people. He does it in three rather than two and brings a finer understanding to the table.  The Go(o)d wolf is Plato's Philosopher King, whilst the evil wolf is represented by the lovers of gain and pride. Both the latter are egoic in nature. Pride as in pride in thinking we know something that gives authority rather than knowledge for service and authenticity. Les miserables is an expression of Plato and these wolves.


Quote
However, the real problem, to which you are apparently blind, is “How do we know which wolf is which?” We know that “good” and “evil” are subjective and we each have our own ideas. In the extreme, “good” and “evil” are pretty clear but the devil is in the detail – where is the line?

From my perspective we haven't discerned a problem other than bias. Let's see what your real problem is then. The line is authentic selflessness. Well that wasn't to hard a problem. If your authentically (as in true) selfless, its a love they neighbour thing, your being Go(o)d. If your selfish, that's not being community spirited. You 're not on the team.

Quote
   
You, of course, are fortunate. This distinction has been mysteriously revealed to you and you can pronounce upon each and every action to say whether it is “good” or “evil”.

Now there's a tactic I've seen before :-) . It's really not a mystery at all. The old cherokee knew it, Plato knew it, Jesus knew it. Why there's probably plenty of folks that know it. Except you perhaps. But that's ok, you know it now don't you. All's go(o)d  :-)   

Quote
   
Can you supply a broad guide to help the rest of us?
Quote
I present the wisdom of the Cherokee
   

I kind of think its straight forward and obvious. Can you tell me which part you are unclear about. Start with just one line and I'll see if I can help.

Quote
   
It’s a bit limited isn’t it? Are you keen on believing the words of primitive peoples? (You apparently are, as you rely heavily on the writings of a discarded ‘gospel’ author.)


Primitive people's loved and laughed and wait for it.... this will test your memory..... shed a tear of joy  :-)
 
Quote
suggest that this is synonymous with many religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions. And therefore these things can be equated to this thing called Go(o)d for want of a better metaphor.

1.   The “and therefore” is a non-sequitur. There is no “therefore” about it. It is this lack of critical thinking that lets you down and why you are unwilling to expose your ideas to the light of supporting evidence.

Boy am I speaking to the short sighted? I've left a link to a summary of my research in a number of posts.  Yet not a soul has talked to that or challenged one claim yet. I live in hope :-). Of course, the main book (400 pages) has more of the links than the summary so let me know if you need a specific reference. Only to happy to oblige.  Here we go again. Now its more a puzzle than a book.  It requires a big picture perspective before the penny drops. Yes that d(evil)s in the detail alright.

http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Quote
2.   “Go(o)d” -> do you think that is clever? It is certainly vague and, like the battling wolves, it leaves everything open to personal interpretation.

Quote
Quote
In Ancient Greek "God" is "Theos", in Hebrew its "YHWH" and the name for "Good" in Greek is "Agathos" in Hebrew "TOBH". They are not the same word.  Nor do they have the same meaning.
I think they do.

“I think they do.” -> Not much of an argument is it?

I gave cause in another post. Hope I don't get hammered for repeating myself.  I was struck by the Jewish use of the God in writing. They say G_d because of some made up story. I think that this thing called Go(o)d is intended to be about g(o)od stuff. It's my way of expressing this point. It's explained in the Book. 

Quote

Quote
Quote
You are using the mythology of holy books, to make your case and God in those is certainly not good.
No I'm not. I only reference the Gospel of Thomas as an authentic interpretation of Jesus.

Which is a source of mythology and, for you, “a holy book.” It is certainly part of the circular reasoning of your inexplicable stance.

Unfounded assumptions on your part. Let me qualify my position.  You really should ask first though :-). The Gospel of Thomas has only 114 sayings attributed to a man called Jesus. He uses the language and references of the day to talk about the human condition and how to navigate the challenges it presents. More philosophical than "holy", I'd say. No Magic, resurrections, devils angels et al. You can't see my stance until you've read it. That's just the way it is with tough subjects with challenging historical material. Its a big picture, and some effort, that's required to get to my proposition. It is was it is :-) 

Quote
Look, EES, we would like some consistency here. We would also like something other than your word. We would like some of the harder questions answered.

It's in the reference. If you believe something is inaccurate, challenge away. I look forward to the challenge. I suggest though that you start with my claim that Judaism was and remains corrupted
by Cyrus the Great. That should be a  relatively straight forward exercise.

Quote
Let me tell you a folktale:
Please do

Quote
“An old Blackfoot pulled out his iPad and opened a Word document. “Look,” he said to his grandson, “here is an interesting quote that I’ve saved: “There is a desire to understand the world inside us all. There are people who think that the answer is held in books of folklore whose stories were made up by Stone Aged civilisations. These people have little experience of critical thinking. They would sit in a darkened tepee and work out an answer without reference to the real world. You can find them on the internet telling you that they alone have the answer. You will find that they don’t because they don’t have all the questions or data. They just want to have everyone be like them. But they do not know who they are. They are a dime a dozen.”

The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, how shall I know these people?”

The old man scrolled down the page and quietly replied. “They are the ones who have confused ideas; they are the ones who speak in parables; they are the ones who invent new words and give other words vague meanings that only they know; they are the ones who do not employ critical thinking. They are the ones who think only they know the truth. Shun them as you would a leper with cholera.”

Oh... is that a reference to me or you guys. I not seeing to much critical thinking either :-)

Quote
Quote
Note: this is not a view held by Rome's Christianity. Whilst the Biblical record, both NT and OT, hold some valid wisdom, they also hold a lot of corruptions designed to service Empire.  You have to watch those assumptions, me thinks.

So you say you are right and the purveyors of Rome's Christianity say they are right. How are we to know who is telling the truth?

The answer to that lays in determining why Nerva received such prestigious awards from both Nero and the Flavians. But from a big picture perspective, it should seem obvious, given his literary skills and the obvious bias in the works of "Flavius" Josephus, that super super extra ordinary Jewish Benedict Arnold     

Quote
(PS ‘methinks’ is one word)
Thanks

Let's get critical, critical :-)


Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2013, 08:53:11 PM »
Right regal lord, I decline, with out **** cause.

Comment removed - encouraging others to disregard the rules

GB Mod
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:16:25 PM by Graybeard »

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2013, 11:29:58 PM »
This is true.  Our minds and methods of communication can be fairly limiting, and I grant that it certainly possible that there are aspects of reality that can never be understood or conveyed.  But if there is something that you cannot, in principle, comprehend, in what manner are you able to either claim to know anything about it or claim to believe it to be true?

Our perception and experience is of duality.   You know what I mean by that.   There is this thing as opposed to that thing, this idea vs. that idea or 'this' as opposed to 'not this.'   In other words, our experience is that of opposites or distinctions of one thing or idea from another.

But doesn't this duality need some kind of source or basis for existence?   Can the basis or grounds for duality be…duality?   That doesn't make sense to me.   Here is another analogy and maybe you will see my problem with it.     

Think of duality as a binary digit: either 0 or 1.   What is the source of that duality?   Processing, which is neither 0 nor 1.   Processing itself is nondual with respect to the 0/1 distinction.   I don't see how a 0/1 duality can arise from one or the other.   There must be something that is neither to make that distinction.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2013, 10:00:21 AM »
Our perception and experience is of duality.   You know what I mean by that.   There is this thing as opposed to that thing, this idea vs. that idea or 'this' as opposed to 'not this.'   In other words, our experience is that of opposites or distinctions of one thing or idea from another.
But rarely are the potential options limited to merely two perfect opposites. The tree in my backyard could exist or not exist, but it could also instead be a telephone pole. One can choose to be a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or follow any number of political "ideas". Why must we restrict the possibilities to only two?

Quote
But doesn't this duality need some kind of source or basis for existence?   Can the basis or grounds for duality be…duality?   That doesn't make sense to me.     
I don't understand why the availability of different options indicates any sort of agency. The human brain has evolved to the point where we can consider a great many different possibilities in any given situation. How does this require any supernatural influence?

Quote
Think of duality as a binary digit: either 0 or 1.   What is the source of that duality?   Processing, which is neither 0 nor 1.   Processing itself is nondual with respect to the 0/1 distinction.   I don't see how a 0/1 duality can arise from one or the other.   There must be something that is neither to make that distinction.
Electronic communication, at its most fundamental, boils down to the presence or absence of an electron. In this case, you are correct that there are only two opposite possibilities. But how could it be any different? Its either there or its not. Why does there need to be some sort of "middle state" to help distinguish between opposites?

This "duality" thing seems to me as just an extension or conflation of Newton's 3rd law[1], and I really don't understand how it points to a creator.

You've apparently given this more thought than I have, so perhaps you can give some more illustrative examples to clarify.
 1. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2013, 01:54:09 PM »

But rarely are the potential options limited to merely two perfect opposites. The tree in my backyard could exist or not exist, but it could also instead be a telephone pole. One can choose to be a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or follow any number of political "ideas". Why must we restrict the possibilities to only two?

It doesn't have to be only two.   It can be "two or more."   I was oversimplifying it.    I should have said our experience is of duality and plurality, neither of which is 'nondual oneness.'   However, even 'nondual oneness' is a dualistic concept because it can be contrasted with 'not non-dual oneness.'   No thought can be nondual or nonplural.   Thought is inherently dualistic and pluralistic.   

But you can always reduce plurality to a duality.   For example, when you make the self/other distinction, 'other' includes many things.   But all of them don't need to be considered individually when making that distinction.   And the political parties you listed can be included in a 'this party/not this party' duality rather than bothering with plurality.         

I don't understand why the availability of different options indicates any sort of agency. The human brain has evolved to the point where we can consider a great many different possibilities in any given situation. How does this require any supernatural influence?

I'm talking about nondualism, not agency/non-agency or supernatural influence/non-supernatural influence.   I'm not making those claims.   I know that duality/non-duality is a duality, but that has to do with the limitation of human thought I was referring to on page one.   There is no way to accurately think or speak of nondualism.   But what you can do is get a little close to it.   

Electronic communication, at its most fundamental, boils down to the presence or absence of an electron. In this case, you are correct that there are only two opposite possibilities. But how could it be any different? Its either there or its not. Why does there need to be some sort of "middle state" to help distinguish between opposites?

This "duality" thing seems to me as just an extension or conflation of Newton's 3rd law[1], and I really don't understand how it points to a creator.

You've apparently given this more thought than I have, so perhaps you can give some more illustrative examples to clarify.
 1. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Existence/nonexistence is the basic duality.   Without non-existence, existence would have no meaning.  So the source of that and all other dualities cannot exist nor not exist.   It must be nondual, like a qubit in superposition.

If the basis for existence existed, there would no grounds for non-existence, therefore existence would have no meaning.   There would be no basis for duality.   I'm not saying that God or 'the Absolute' exists.   I'm saying God is nondual and is the source of duality such as existence/nonexistence. 

A lot of people on here have a problem with nondualism because it violates classical logic, the law of contradiction etc.   But there is a discriminating way of dealing with contradictions such as quantum superposition called paraconsistent logic in which the principle of explosion is rejected.   So this is logical, it just isn't classically logical.           

« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 01:57:50 PM by nebula »

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2013, 01:49:34 AM »
Talk about creative imaginings :-)

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2013, 02:56:05 AM »
Talk about creative imaginings :-)

The Gospel of Thomas is a text on nondualism. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gospel+of+thomas+nondual

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1431
  • Darwins +52/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2013, 05:07:52 AM »
Talk about creative imaginings :-)
Pot/kettle comes to mind.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2013, 05:57:06 AM »
Existence/nonexistence is the basic duality.   Without non-existence, existence would have no meaning.

The idea that everything must have an opposite is based upon nothing in particular. I ask you, "What is the opposite of a banana? Absent an explanation, can we say that bananas do not exist or bananas are meaningless?" 

Quote
So the source of that and all other dualities cannot exist nor not exist.   It must be nondual, like a qubit in superposition.

Using an analogy with technology does not give your argument any authoritative status.

Quote
I'm not saying that God or 'the Absolute' exists.   I'm saying God is nondual and is the source of duality such as existence/nonexistence.

Would you care to break the rule of a lifetime and re-read that? First you say you are uncertain about either (i) God or (ii) The Absolute existing, and then you describe the thing you are uncertain about as the source of that which you claim to be essential.

Your logic is non-existent.

Quote
A lot of people on here have a problem with nondualism because it violates classical logic, the law of contradiction etc.   But there is a discriminating way of dealing with contradictions such as quantum superposition called paraconsistent logic in which the principle of explosion is rejected.   So this is logical, it just isn't classically logical.           

I think few here will either have heard of Paraconsistent logicWiki or, when they read of it, will agree with its reliability:

Quote
Paraconsistent logics are propositionally weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional inferences valid. [...] The primary motivation for paraconsistent logic is the conviction that it ought to be possible to reason with inconsistent information in a controlled and discriminating way.

1. I draw your attention to the noun "logics." "Logic is usually a non-count noun indicating a generality. In its count form the noun refers to one specific instance. This indicates that paralogic requires individual proof for each instance -> a proof that seems elusive unless you believe in "paralogic." This, then appears circular.

2. To add to this, I would as you to note the use of the verbs "deems" and "ought to be". Both express the idea that paraconsistent logic is far from robust and that we probably cannot know if it has proven anything or not.

So, basing your explanation on a fragile system with no way of demonstrating that the logic actually flows may not be accepted by all as an explanation at all. I, for one reject it.

I think that your problem is that you have accepted your own bullshit and are now spouting it as if it were true. This again is circular.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2013, 09:34:10 AM »
The idea that everything must have an opposite is based upon nothing in particular. I ask you, "What is the opposite of a banana? Absent an explanation, can we say that bananas do not exist or bananas are meaningless?"

'A banana' refers to an imagined particular banana.   The opposite is 'not that particular banana.'  The duality is that banana/not that banana or that banana/other.   'Not that banana' or 'other' designates the rest of our space-time, everything besides the banana.

Using an analogy with technology does not give your argument any authoritative status.

Why?   From my perspective, qubits are directly related to this discussion because, in my opinion, the physical universe is the output of the nonphysical quantum processing of qubits.   A qubit in superposition is indicative of the nature of their ultimate source, in my opinion.   They demonstrate the basic nonduality of neither existence nor non-existence.   

As far as documentation for the claim that physicality is a processing output, I will post the same Brian Whitworth articles I post in every thread, in case anyone hasn't seen them (actually he just completed chapter 4 five days ago, so that's new).

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT4.pdf 

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRTQuestions.pdf

Would you care to break the rule of a lifetime and re-read that? First you say you are uncertain about either (i) God or (ii) The Absolute existing, and then you describe the thing you are uncertain about as the source of that which you claim to be essential.

Your logic is non-existent.

The phrase "or 'the Absolute'" was meant to indicate that I meant something by the word 'God' other than Yahweh.   I was using 'God' and 'the Absolute' interchangeably.   Call it what you will…'the Source,' 'the basis for duality' etc.

I think few here will either have heard of Paraconsistent logicWiki or, when they read of it, will agree with its reliability:

Quote
Paraconsistent logics are propositionally weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional inferences valid. [...] The primary motivation for paraconsistent logic is the conviction that it ought to be possible to reason with inconsistent information in a controlled and discriminating way.

1. I draw your attention to the noun "logics." "Logic is usually a non-count noun indicating a generality. In its count form the noun refers to one specific instance. This indicates that paralogic requires individual proof for each instance -> a proof that seems elusive unless you believe in "paralogic." This, then appears circular.

2. To add to this, I would as you to note the use of the verbs "deems" and "ought to be". Both express the idea that paraconsistent logic is far from robust and that we probably cannot know if it has proven anything or not.

So, basing your explanation on a fragile system with no way of demonstrating that the logic actually flows may not be accepted by all as an explanation at all. I, for one reject it.

I think that your problem is that you have accepted your own bullshit and are now spouting it as if it were true. This again is circular.

Well I thought paraconsistent logic would be worth a shot as far as getting people to not throw the law of non-contradiction at me.   It's used by some to deal with quantum superposition (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3121) and I think quantum superposition is relevant to the subject of nondualism.    Quantum superposition, specifically in the form of a qubit in superposition, proves that something can be in opposite states, 0 and 1, at the same time, which can also be thought of as neither state, which is what I'm claiming God is.   God, (or the Source, if you will) is neither in the existence state nor the non-existence state.   It's in neither which make it possible for either state to arise.     

On page 1 of this thread I was talking about how nondualism is beyond thought, and I had a fish analogy etc.   What is your view on that?   What I mean is, if this isn't logical by any system of logic, so what?   Do you believe that the basis or grounds for existence should make logical sense to humans?   As far as we know fish don't understand any of the grounds for their existence that we're familiar with, such as physics, chemistry, biology and ecology.   Doesn't it make sense to you that there would be a basis or bases for our existence that are beyond our ability to make logical sense of or that are beyond our capacity to think of?   If you agree that our capacity for thought has limits then why is logic so important when it comes to metaphysics? 

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6471
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2013, 10:21:12 AM »
On page 1 of this thread I was talking about how nondualism is beyond thought, and I had a fish analogy etc.   What is your view on that?   What I mean is, if this isn't logical by any system of logic, so what?   Do you believe that the basis or grounds for existence should make logical sense to humans?   As far as we know fish don't understand any of the grounds for their existence that we're familiar with, such as physics, chemistry, biology and ecology.   Doesn't it make sense to you that there would be a basis or bases for our existence that are beyond our ability to make logical sense of or that are beyond our capacity to think of?   If you agree that our capacity for thought has limits then why is logic so important when it comes to metaphysics? 

nebula, if you're right, what can we do about it? Especially those of us who are untrained in any of the relevant arenas? I, for one, am not going to start running around assuming that there must be a god because everything is out of my mental reach.

I understand that this is either important or interesting, or both, to you. But there are those of us with lives to live and I can't quite figure out why, other than out of personal curiousity, one should be delving into things like this with any seriousness. And you would be hard pressed to convince me that such heady stuff is the main fascination of religion. The religious seem way to interested in what I'm doing in my bedroom to have time for this stuff.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nebula

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Darwins +5/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2013, 11:27:37 AM »
nebula, if you're right, what can we do about it?

From an absolutist perspective, right/wrong, true/false are just more illusory dualities but relatively speaking, maybe something like this.  Here's the last sentence from the OP with my addition in italics:

"I therefore am puzzled as to why anyone should think that there is even a vanishingly small chance of there being gods, unless of course they have a nondual conception of a god, in which case duality such as being/nonbeing wouldn't apply."

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2013, 11:38:51 AM »
I think the (often religious) insistence that everything has duality is one of the largest problems we face today. Black and white, forgetting about all the shades of gray in between. Us vs them, when humans generally have a lot more in common than not. Male and female, when there are many who are both or neither. Binary is for computers. Life is generally analog.

Perhaps its simply how we look at the world, but binary divisions do one thing. They divide us. They encourage people to judge. They over simplify issues.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2013, 12:19:42 PM »
The phrase "or 'the Absolute'" was meant to indicate that I meant something by the word 'God' other than Yahweh.   I was using 'God' and 'the Absolute' interchangeably.   Call it what you will…'the Source,' 'the basis for duality' etc.
I still don't understand how any of this brings you to conclude there must be a "Source", which you may not think is Yahweh but you certainly imply is a "Creator" of some sort. If the root basis for universal "duality" is the simple notion that anything that presently exists could potentially not exist, then please explain how a universe free from duality could possibly function. It seems to me the existence/non-existence concept is irreducibly complex, and therefore inescapable. You seem to think you've discovered something very profound in all this, but I just don't see it. Apparently, I'm not alone in that regard.
 
Quote
On page 1 of this thread I was talking about how nondualism is beyond thought, and I had a fish analogy etc.   What is your view on that?   What I mean is, if this isn't logical by any system of logic, so what?   Do you believe that the basis or grounds for existence should make logical sense to humans?   As far as we know fish don't understand any of the grounds for their existence that we're familiar with, such as physics, chemistry, biology and ecology.   Doesn't it make sense to you that there would be a basis or bases for our existence that are beyond our ability to make logical sense of or that are beyond our capacity to think of?   If you agree that our capacity for thought has limits then why is logic so important when it comes to metaphysics?
I absolutely acknowledge that there are many things beyond the understanding of the human mind, but how would anyone be able to come to any definitive conclusions (ie. that there is a creator) based on something that's beyond human understanding? And why would they want to? It seems a giant waste of time and effort sitting around trying to comprehend the incomprehensible.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6471
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2013, 02:54:45 PM »
nebula, if you're right, what can we do about it?

From an absolutist perspective, right/wrong, true/false are just more illusory dualities but relatively speaking, maybe something like this.  Here's the last sentence from the OP with my addition in italics:

"I therefore am puzzled as to why anyone should think that there is even a vanishingly small chance of there being gods, unless of course they have a nondual conception of a god, in which case duality such as being/nonbeing wouldn't apply."

First of all, the dualist approach to this subject is not required. It is optional, and I see giving things too much thought in too small a realm as useless. But that's just me. I became an atheist without giving this particular process any thought.

To predefine limits, no matter how big those limits are, and then have long conversations based on the assumptions behind those limits may be entertaining to some. In this case, I don't get it. Never in my life have I wondered around asking myself if I should be a dualist or not. I remember studying the philosophical stance in college very very long ago, and I don't remember being told that I was required to look at the world that way.

I assume, too, that there must be tripllsts and quadrupilists and pentapulists, Because I can think of no reason to stop at two when you're defining the attributes of the unknown.

Do you use dualism to explain your view of god(s)?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2013, 06:17:54 PM »
Talk about creative imaginings :-)

The Gospel of Thomas is a text on nondualism. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gospel+of+thomas+nondual

When you grasp its meaning. However it is in fact a discussion on dualism, no different from any other valid spiritual interpretation. ****  Shoulder Angels.

11 Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"


Spend you're life reconciling to choosing the one, perhaps.

30 Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."

Two or one is a reference to duality.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:18:52 PM by Graybeard »

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2013, 06:23:54 PM »
There is no god and no agent. Everything that is and has any relevance to us is made of the same stuff we are made of: molecules.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Is there any possibility at all that there are gods?
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2013, 07:29:29 PM »
There is no god and no agent. Everything that is and has any relevance to us is made of the same stuff we are made of: molecules.

And your proof is. By the way, I don't think of this thing called Go(o)d as a person in the sky as you seem to. It's more like a metaphor for things that are Go(o)d.

See even Jesus, knew that.

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."


How many molecules are there in this thing called true love, I wonder :-)