Evidence for "God consciousness" (origin, examples, theories, existence)

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

But ChristyGrl, Mystic is not using the term "a God" as most people generally would. For Mystic, all something has to be to meet the requirements of "A God" is that it is made up of whatever forces exist(ed) that ultimately cause(d) our world to be as it is today.

Clearly, we all agree that there are/were forces that ultimately caused our world to be as it is today.

The problem comes when Mystic tells us that his "A God" is proven, because he doesn't include a disclaimer saying that his definition of "A God" is simply referring to what's already proven (plus whatever unknowables there are - but his definition does not define those unknowables so that adds nothing).

Most people would assume he means a conscious being, and he never really corrects people on that before assuming they should already know and creating ad hominems because they don't.

It's just like if I said "Bigfoot exists" without clarifying that "Bigfoot" is the nickname I gave to the earth. But is the earth not frekin big?! It deserves the title "Bigfoot"! You people are so off base thinking "Bigfoot" refers to those ridiculous but lucrative bogus claims of a hairy human-like creature in the woods. Oh right.. in my opinion.

Get a grip Dude! Like Mystics synthesis isn't deeper that that!

We've gotten but a snippet of it...and so far it is the most sensible, logical, reasonable concept for how things came to be...how they are...and how it all relates...that I have ever had the honor of reading. I'm sure it also has wonderfully enlightening components of after mortal life, and Gods interaction with us (directly and through Jesus Christ) that I would consider the greatest of Blessings to be able to assimilate into my mind and heart.

Your "Bigfoot=Big Earth" garbage analogy is a foolish insult to his sincere postings on his synthesis...and speaks volumes of the vibe you put out, relative to his.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Get a grip Dude! Like Mystics synthesis isn't deeper that that!

We've gotten but a snippet of it...and so far it is the most sensible, logical, reasonable concept for how things came to be...how they are...and how it all relates...that I have ever had the honor of reading. I'm sure it also has wonderfully enlightening components of after mortal life, and Gods interaction with us (directly and through Jesus Christ) that I would consider the greatest of Blessings to be able to assimilate into my mind and heart.

Your "Bigfoot=Big Earth" garbage analogy is a foolish insult to his sincere postings on his synthesis...and speaks volumes of the vibe you put out, relative to his.

You clearly don't understand the nuance of the issues here. I'm surprised you haven't earned an ad hominem from Mystic for your lack of understanding of his two-part position.

1) he says that what we do know about the universe is sufficient to call it "A God" (generic), meaning his generic definition of "A god" is vague enough to apply to the menial amount of information we do know about the universe. This is an opinion, of course - as "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, "Godliness" is as well.

2) he has (admittedly unproven/unprovable) beliefs that this "A god" is conscious (i.e. a "God consciousness" exists), but he is allegedly not trying to convince us of that.


My post is referring to #1, which you should be able to understand if you reread what I wrote.

Mystic's "Synthesis" refers to #2, which, as intricate, detailed and awe-inspiring as it may be, is still unproven/unprovable beliefs.

[Gplex]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Mystic's "Synthesis" refers to #2, which, as intricate, detailed and awe-inspiring as it may be, is still unproven/unprovable beliefs.

I though mystic argument was rather poor.

[ChristyGrl]

Originally Posted by Gplex

I though mystic argument was rather poor.

That was exactly the point we were attempting to make. The argument was based on personal belief and speculation...not based on anything proven or provable at this time.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by ChristyGrl

That was exactly the point we were attempting to make. The argument was based on personal belief and speculation...not based on anything proven or provable at this time.

I submit... his "sense" of "God" during his meditation IS proof...even though others that do not have use of this sensory perception in themselves, claim it as "not proven". He is being gratuitous to say it is "only" proven to him.

It is not unlike someone that has always been blind, telling a sighted person, that, even though he/she used their sense of sight to observe something over and over again, that does not necessarily prove it is so. Because they themselves are not capable of sight, they do not comprehend the capacity of that sense to gather data for a person that does. They support this contention on the basis that they never saw it, so the fact that you did, doesn't matter...and that they don't believe in the ability of that sense to collect data. Would the blind persons contention make it so, even though the contention is true as far as they are concerned?

I accept the evidence of "God Consciousness" obtained by the many that have the capacity to use extra sensory perception to gain information...even though I don't have a full capability of that myself. I do not discount the millions of accounts of this experience, by those who have had it, as all of them lying or being mistaken...which is what, in fact, would have to be the case for ALL of them to be wrong. Wisdom and common sense tells me otherwise.

[AnonChick]

submit... his "sense" of "God" during his meditation IS proof...

...that he has a vivid imagination.

That is the only thing it proves.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

...that he has a vivid imagination.
That is the only thing it proves.

You see Gldnrule . . . there is no objectivity among the extremists of both types (theist or atheist) . . . they are all "fundies" for their respective positions. If there was even a modicum of receptivity they would not reject my science-based hypotheses as readily as they reject orbiting teapots, FSM's, fairies, Big Foot . . . whatever. Fundy atheists allow for no exceptions and make no discriminations among "speculations" (otherwise known as hypotheses about the unknown) . . . for plausibility or any other reasonable theorizing. Those who are sensitive to God within will "get it" . . . those who are not . . . will not. Belief cannot be forced or "willed into existence."

[ChristyGrl]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I submit... his "sense" of "God" during his meditation IS proof...even though others that do not have use of this sensory perception in themselves, claim it as "not proven". He is being gratuitous to say it is "only" proven to him.

Surely you understand that his "sense" as you call it is purely subjective and proves NOTHING...don't you????

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You see Gldnrule . . . there is no objectivity among the extremists of both types (theist or atheist) . . . they are all "fundies" for their respective positions. If there was even a modicum of receptivity they would not reject my science-based hypotheses as readily as they reject orbiting teapots, FSM's, fairies, Big Foot . . . whatever. Fundy atheists allow for no exceptions and make no discriminations among "speculations" (otherwise known as hypotheses about the unknown) . . . for plausibility or any other reasonable theorizing. Those who are sensitive to God within will "get it" . . . those who are not . . . will not. Belief cannot be forced or "willed into existence."

Hey Mystic...I will believe you....All you have to do is point me to evidence that I can evaluate for myself...I will not take your word for it, any more than a fundies word for talking snakes.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I submit... his "sense" of "God" during his meditation IS proof...even though others that do not have use of this sensory perception in themselves, claim it as "not proven". He is being gratuitous to say it is "only" proven to him.

It is not unlike someone that has always been blind, telling a sighted person, that, even though he/she used their sense of sight to observe something over and over again, that does not necessarily prove it is so. Because they themselves are not capable of sight, they do not comprehend the capacity of that sense to gather data for a person that does. They support this contention on the basis that they never saw it, so the fact that you did, doesn't matter...and that they don't believe in the ability of that sense to collect data. Would the blind persons contention make it so, even though the contention is true as far as they are concerned?

I accept the evidence of "God Consciousness" obtained by the many that have the capacity to use extra sensory perception to gain information...even though I don't have a full capability of that myself. I do not discount the millions of accounts of this experience, by those who have had it, as all of them lying or being mistaken...which is what, in fact, would have to be the case for ALL of them to be wrong. Wisdom and common sense tells me otherwise.

Two things....
1.....can you direct us to those 'millions of accounts"?

2.....If this is such a common experience among 'millions' why are you begging Mystic to publish because, if I recall you saying, it is so revolutionary and unique and will transform the worlds' thinking , so to speak?