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.
Good to know, because reading comment after comment of yours in which you seem to suggest pragmatism and the rest is what stands in the way of understanding you, I came to this conclusion, but okay. If you say so, but now instead (or in addition) with this comment you seem to be suggesting the problem is yet another mental obstacle of one sort or another. Now it's my shortcoming when it comes to my ability to abstract and envision a different perspective. Or lack thereof.
You know I get your own body analogy and what our cells would think if they were aware as you describe. Does this count for anything in terms of being able to abstract and envision a different perspective? I'd say your analogy is something like me (just one cell) and how the universe (the whole body) seems to me as I am aware of myself and the myriad of other things that comprise the universe. All I am able to be aware of in any case.
None of which is helping me get any closer to appreciating your notions about God however...
I tend to think the problem is not so much any of these obstacles you believe are standing in the way of recognizing the validity of your claims about God. I remain highly suspicious the problem has to do with the validity.
I know you have the ability to abstract a different perspective, LearnMe. It just seems you were not. Understanding my perspective of God is NOT about validating it. NEITHER of us has any ability to validate our preferred perspective about it. My efforts are geared toward providing an understanding of how I could possibly hold it scientifically, pragmatically, logically, reasonably, etc. without being insane (or otherwise mentally ill) or whatever.
No, that is what I describe as 'our existence', one made up of atoms, with rules and properties that describe how our universe functions. But if there are other universes, as several different theories suggest, then they will probably have a different reality to ours, with a different set of rules and properties.
Our 'ultimate reality' is literally everything that exists, but not at the level we understand it in our classical physics world of atoms and automobiles. Our atomic world is based on the quantum world, which could be based on another level such as strings, until the ultimate base level.
What I call our 'ultimate reality' is literally everything that exists, including other possible universes, but at that base level, and that everything in existence, including our atomic world (our reality) is ultimately a product of that base level.
Mystic will correct me if I understand is position false, but if he believes our universe is everything, and there is only one universe, then he sees it as a god. If he accepts there could be more than one universe, then he would see the ultimate source for those universes as a god.
Our disagreements are about his arguments for why it should be called a god.
Right, but for purposes needed here, there is only one reality.
'Ultimate reality' and 'our reality' implies that there are realities other than our own and I just don't buy that. In science theory, or philosophically, okay, but it will only ever be just theoretical, so on this forum I don't see the purpose in talking about anything other than just plain 'reality'.
Hey Mystic,
I was doing a bit of searching around this afternoon, trying to get my head around this term 'ultimate reality' and what people mean by it.
Hey Mystic,
I was doing a bit of searching around this afternoon, trying to get my head around this term 'ultimate reality' and what people mean by it.
Thanks, Cruithne. Sounds like an interesting study.
"Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.
Moreover, the researchers say, a majority of respondents attributed lasting positive changes in their psychological health--e.g., life satisfaction, purpose and meaning--even decades after their initial experience."
I can only speak to the experience itself which was unlike any other experience I am familiar with ("While Sober"). I have no referent for the effect of psychedelics on the evaluation of the experience. The level of "knowing" is uniquely unmistakable but I don't know if that would be the case under the influence of a substance. Apparently, it is sufficiently convincing for two-thirds of the atheists studied to shed their atheism.
I know you have the ability to abstract a different perspective, LearnMe. It just seems you were not. Understanding my perspective of God is NOT about validating it. NEITHER of us has any ability to validate our preferred perspective about it. My efforts are geared toward providing an understanding of how I could possibly hold it scientifically, pragmatically, logically, reasonably, etc. without being insane (or otherwise mentally ill) or whatever.
I don't share your perspective that suggests NEITHER of us has any ability to validate our preferred perspective or that our perspectives are equally valid...
As I have explained over and over again, I don't make claims about what exists that cannot be validated. This is a significant difference you always seem to miss or under appreciate. The claims I make about the truth of these matters are not a function of perspective. They are essentially the truths we all know to share in common. Our universal truths about which there is really on debate. All of which lends itself to observation, testing, verification and validation.
Good luck with your efforts. I'm glad I am not similarly burdened or challenged, because my beliefs are not the kind that might make anyone think I'm insane reasonably speaking.
I don't share your perspective that suggests NEITHER of us has any ability to validate our preferred perspective or that our perspectives are equally valid...
As I have explained over and over again, I don't make claims about what exists that cannot be validated. This is a significant difference you always seem to miss or under appreciate. The claims I make about the truth of these matters are not a function of perspective. They are essentially the truths we all know to share in common. Our universal truths about which there is really on debate. All of which lends itself to observation, testing, verification and validation.
Good luck with your efforts. I'm glad I am not similarly burdened or challenged, because my beliefs are not the kind that might make anyone think I'm insane reasonably speaking.
You are an unusually arrogant person who either refuses to accept that you do not KNOW what the hell Reality or existence IS or you are that dense philosophically about ontology. I cannot discern which but I suspect the former. That would be the origin of my reference to stubbornly wedded to atheism (NOT as unbelief but as the actual ontological state of Reality).
You are an unusually arrogant person who either refuses to accept that you do not KNOW what the hell Reality or existence IS or you are that dense philosophically about ontology. I cannot discern which but I suspect the former. That would be the origin of my reference to stubbornly wedded to atheism (NOT as unbelief but as the actual ontological state of Reality).
Might as well add arrogance to the long list of my shortcomings you have compiled over time now. Just how many shortcomings is that now? I hate to guess...
I'm not sure insults are necessary when all I continue to explain is what I know and what I don't know. I surely don't know everything, but I don't know of any reason to believe everything I'm told. Even from you.
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.
