Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consciousness manifests as a pure field phenomenon transcendent to reality itself. Why do you refuse to see that as a definition of God?Ah, old mate, Our reality is comprised of SOMETHING and everything that manifests within it MUST be comprised of that something (unified field). You refuse to acknowledge that what are called dark energy, dark matter and consciousness are manifestations of "whatever" it is that comprises our reality. You reject them as speculation simply because we cannot currently directly measure them. Still the quantity of reality (95+%) that they encompass should give you pause because you are relying on what we know about less than 5%, but it doesn't.
But you seem to add some type of agency to this, without any way to demonstrate it so it can be measured or quantified. Without this, you are only providing the same speculative claims that fundamentalists claim. You're welcome to call it God, Elvis, or any number of names, though it doesn't conform to the definition of God or Elvis that most all others accept.
Consciousness manifests as a pure field phenomenon transcendent to reality itself. Why do you refuse to see that as a definition of God?Ah, old mate, Our reality is comprised of SOMETHING and everything that manifests within it MUST be comprised of that something (unified field). You refuse to acknowledge that what are called dark energy, dark matter and consciousness are manifestations of "whatever" it is that comprises our reality. You reject them as speculation simply because we cannot currently directly measure them. Still the quantity of reality (95+%) that they encompass should give you pause because you are relying on what we know about less than 5%, but it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
But you seem to add some type of agency to this, without any way to demonstrate it so it can be measured or quantified. Without this, you are only providing the same speculative claims that fundamentalists claim. You're welcome to call it God, Elvis, or any number of names, though it doesn't conform to the definition of God or Elvis that most all others accept.
Reality is comprised of a field (unified field) that everything in reality is comprised of in some form or other, "whatever" words you use to describe the manifestations. Consciousness is such a field phenomenon and within consciousness the constraints of reality do not apply, making it in that sense transcendent to reality. The only field phenomenon we know of that is transcendent to reality is consciousness and we know it exists in our reality. How could a lesser reality encompass a greater phenomenon within it? So the unified field that establishes everything in reality must at the same time be transcendent to reality. Reality must be conscious. What else would a conscious reality be if not God???
New Pew Research Study shows that the number of those in the U.S. who are absolutely certain that a God exists has dropped significantly, from 71% in 2007 to 63% in 2014.
Reality is comprised of a field (unified field) that everything in reality is comprised of in some form or other, "whatever" words you use to describe the manifestations. Consciousness is such a field phenomenon and within consciousness the constraints of reality do not apply, making it in that sense transcendent to reality. The only field phenomenon we know of that is transcendent to reality is consciousness and we know it exists in our reality. How could a lesser reality encompass a greater phenomenon within it? So the unified field that establishes everything in reality must at the same time be transcendent to reality. Reality must be conscious. What else would a conscious reality be if not God???
This is simply your assertion. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, we must assume that consciousness comes from the physical brain and does not transcend reality.
You still refuse to acknowledge that whatever manifests within our reality is part of reality
You are so invested in typing that line over and over again you never stop to even check if it applies. I am the one accepting that things in our relaity are part of our reality. It is you - not me - claiming that human consciousness is not constrained by reality - or transcends reality. So it is _you_ here refusing to acknowledge that what manifests within our reality is part of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Apparently you think that our imagination produces "magical" things that are NOT part of reality because they are in our consciousness
No - I think the exact opposite of that - which I usually do whenever you stop and try and describe what I think. You always seem to insist on describing the exact opposite of what I actually think. I am the one saying it is all part of our reality. The thoughts. The consciousness. The brain producing it. I am the _last_ personal trying to claim it transcends or is not part of reality. YOU are doing that.
And you are doing it without any evidence at all of any kind. Where is the evidence that the contents of consciousness transcend reality? You claimed it - now back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I suspect we are on two different intellectual planes of experience that cannot find sufficient common ground to communicate effectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I think I see the essence of our disagreements.
Yes the "essence of our disagreements" are that you keep making claims about consciousness that:
A) You do not back up with a tiny piece of evidence
B) Go against the things we do know about consciousness and
C) You need to misrepresent what I say and claim in order to dodge answering any questions about your evidence.
And I agree all of that very much does indicate to me which intellectual planes we are each operating on.
New Pew Research Study shows that the number of those in the U.S. who are absolutely certain that a God exists has dropped significantly, from 71% in 2007 to 63% in 2014.
Indeed, by some measures, religiously affiliated people appear to have grown more religiously observant in recent years. The portion of religiously affiliated adults who say they regularly read scripture, share their faith with others and participate in small prayer groups or scripture study groups all have increased modestly since 2007. And roughly four-in-ten religiously affiliated adults (41%) now say they rely mainly on their religious beliefs for guidance on questions about right and wrong, up 7 percentage points in seven years. The study also suggests that in some ways Americans are becoming more spiritual. About six-in-ten adults now say they regularly feel a deep sense of “spiritual peace and well-being,” up 7 percentage points since 2007. And 46% of Americans say they experience a deep sense of “wonder about the universe” at least once a week, also up 7 points over the same period.
And they failed in qualifying the question. If they had said "personal God" or "non-personal God" or "transpersonal God" or the every popular yet irksome "higher power" the answer would have been different.
That is a highly dishonest bit of historical revisionism from you there as nothing of the sort was ignored.
Actually, again, this is what you wrote. All I did was put some words in bold:
Quote:
The simple fact is that if you merely declare god to be everything, then you have said nothing and added nothing. We have a word for everything already. It is "everything". If you call everything "god" or call everything "Spluddunky-nunky-boo-bahh" then all you have done is applied a new label to something already defined. So you have added nothing. If you do not understand this then that is your failing, not mine, but I am happy to keep working through it for as long as you like.
If it just stopped there of course it would be bad enough, but it does not just stop there. People then leap from that use of the word "god" to all kinds of other egregious nonsense that they smuggle in under that banner. A smuggling they thing they can get away with due to the wealth of metaphysical baggage people generally have associated with the word. They clearly feel that if they can smuggle in the usage of the word, then they get all kinds of other freebies too.
It is clear to anyone without a severe reading comprehension problem that you are accusing me of making up a definition of God (hence the term "you" over and over as opposed to "that definition) And I am not, but simply using a pre-existing one.
Anyway, the only thing of some value I got out of that long stream of verbal diarrhea was this:
Quote:
I can offer you a useless one for sure. I see evidence as a process not a thing. The process goes as follows:
1) State clearly what you are claiming.
2) State clearly the things you think support that claim.
3) Explain clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
So I will easily explain why God is real while eating a scone from Starbucks.
1) I am claiming that God, as it exists in ancient Taoists, Gnostic and Hindu scriptures is real.
2) Those ancient ancient scriptures claim that reality is God and that "God" is a concept for better understand our personal reality (not natural reality, which is what science is for)
3) I exist, my personal reality exist.
4) That definition of God is true because my personal reality is obviously here.
You can attack the above "ahh, that says nothing, it's silly! blah blah..." but there is no real evidence against the above, just opinions.
Quote:
What we observe on this thread however is more like:
1) Make some vague claim that no one is actually sure what you are saying.
2) List some stuff.
3) Run.
Read your own words above. I am not making a vague claiming but simply proving that you either A) are somehow insinuating that I made up the pantheistic idea or B) you really have trouble expressing your ideas in writing.
I only "listed" points that back up my claim and I have been back to this thread, hence no "running".
Actually, again, this is what you wrote. All I did was put some words in bold: It is clear to anyone without a severe reading comprehension problem that you are accusing me of making up a definition of God
Nope nothing of the sort is clear at all, certainly not from your long stream of verbal diarrhea. The reading comprehension problems lie with you in your long stream of verbal diarrhea because you think there is only one possible use of the word "you". Let me help you with a straight dictionary definition seeing as this conversation is erring towards an English lesson rather than being about god. To help your failing in your long stream of verbal diarrhea even further I will bold the relevant part of the definition:
you (pronoun)
1. used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"
2. used to refer to any person in general. "after a while, you get used to it"
Now I invite you to re-read the text you quoted and parse it through definition (2) above and see what you get. When you then realize your ongoing errors in your long stream of verbal diarrhea, come back and try to reply to what I actually said rather than what you have misinterpreted it as. No charge for the English lesson however.
I further point out (again, since I pointed it out numerous times already) that the content of my argument remains entirely the same regardless of who or when the definition of "god as everything" was coined. My argument simply does not change regardless of whether it was yesterday, last year, last century, or last bronze age which you might move to notice in your next long stream of verbal diarrhea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
So I will easily explain why God is real while eating a scone from Starbucks.
And as I keep pointing out, the value of your concept is around the same as that of the scone from Starbucks. In fact given how over priced things are from that venue, I mean the actual value, not the one you foolishly pay for it.
Because if you are simply subscribing to a definition of "God is all of reality" then you have said nothing at all, but used a long stream of verbal diarrhea to say it. You are simply taking something that already has a label on it, and using another one. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You might as well define "god" as being the scone, because then too "god" would clearly exist because you have modified the definition to define it into existence. As such "god" only exists as an exercise in linguistic pedantry and nothing more. And if THAT is all your god is then sure, your god exists and I never once denied that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
