Debating the Existence of God

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it was jujubonboi who spoke to me. he said don worry, every ting be o-right.

Hmmm… Somet’ing tells I he manifest as three little birds—outside the I’s doorstep… 🙂

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
explain what you have learned from that source, why it is relevant and what conclusions can be reasonably drawn from them.

I learned that today's Atheists are getting desperate for a reason not to believe and so they now have to claim Christ never existed. This is like saying my ancient ancestor never existed, since he was not an ape.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I learned that today's Atheists are getting desperate for a reason not to believe and so they now have to claim Christ never existed. This is like saying my ancient ancestor never existed, since he was not an ape.

so you learned nothing.

Originally posted by JS357
A thread title bound to get attention.

And it actually fits.

Googling on "metaphors we live by" "god as a metaphor" lakoff I get 2 hits. One is

http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/432/on-not-debating-the-existence-of-god

So judging by the url I am in trouble already, according to some here.

It is a fairly short read, I think worthwhile for those ...[text shortened]... well lived is indicated entirely by where one ends up after its earthly moments are over.

I desire to introduce a new element in this thread.
Can we know the "Know-er " ? This is the question replied in the negative by Vedanta.
The subject cannot know itself. The subject can only know about the objects. I quote Dr. Radhakrishnan.
" If the Real is misconceived as an object of knowledge, it cannot be known. Empirical objects may be known by outer observation or inner introspection. But the Self cannot divide itself into the know-er and known. Logical reasoning is incapable of comprehending the living unity of God and man, the Absolute and the relative. "
This being so, debating the existence of God is somewhat pointless. We or all beings are God.

Originally posted by jaywill

For me, if your god wants to announce itself, I'll be all ears. Till then, when a human tells me there is a god, I just go back to practicing on my guitar and writing music.

Are you expecting God to make an announcement over your guitar amp some afternoon ?

He has spoken. You are not "all ears" at all. You have sampled, you hate w ...[text shortened]... ou now say God has not revealed Himself only because you hate what was revealed in the Bible.

Good postings jaywill...

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I desire to introduce a new element in this thread.
Can we know the "Know-er " ? This is the question replied in the negative by Vedanta.
The subject cannot know itself. The subject can only know about the objects. I quote Dr. Radhakrishnan.
" If the Real is misconceived as an object of knowledge, it cannot be known. Empirical objects may be known by o his being so, debating the existence of God is somewhat pointless. We or all beings are God.

http://david-jacobs.suite101.com/david-humes-idea-of-the-self-a208247

quote:

If humans look into themselves, can the self be perceived? Hume writes, “when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” What is observed are only perceptions, used in a broad sense, and not the self having the perceptions.

What is the self then? For Hume, humans are nothing but “a bundle or collection of different perceptions.” It can be asked of Hume, can one trace this complex idea of bundle or collection back to simple ideas and then back to simple impressions? The answer is “no.” Turning Hume’s theory back onto itself, it makes no sense then to even speak of a “bundle of perceptions” because there is no justification for the compounding of these various perceptions. According to Hume's theory, there is no justification to say that a perceptions [sic] belongs to anyone.


unquote.

Originally posted by JS357
http://david-jacobs.suite101.com/david-humes-idea-of-the-self-a208247

quote:

If humans look into themselves, can the self be perceived? Hume writes, “when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at ...[text shortened]... ory, there is no justification to say that a perceptions [sic] belongs to anyone.


unquote.

I saw the the web page. The idea of self that Hume is talking about is the everyday David Hume that is known to one and all, the philosopher, the Scotsman and so on, the one who writes treatises on human nature, takes snuff etc. In that, he is right when he says that when he looks inside himself, he finds a bundle of perceptions.
The web page writer confirms this idea of self, when he says that this self is changeable over time and is different for everyone.
No, no and no. The idea of the Self ( pl.note the capital letter ) of rvsakhadeo is not what a modern psychologist will describe in his case study i.e lazy, shortsighted, forgetful but otherwise a good householder and a structural engineer, with monster size bundles of perception inside of him.
The Hindu Self is neither subject to change over time nor is it different from person to person. It is an immortal bit separated from the parent Brahman, and deluded into believing that he is a body etc.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I saw the the web page. The idea of self that Hume is talking about is the everyday David Hume that is known to one and all, the philosopher, the Scotsman and so on, the one who writes treatises on human nature, takes snuff etc. In that, he is right when he says that when he looks inside himself, he finds a bundle of perceptions.
The web page writer con ...[text shortened]... mmortal bit separated from the parent Brahman, and deluded into believing that he is a body etc.

The Hindu Self is neither subject to change over time nor is it different from person to person. It is an immortal bit separated from the parent Brahman, and deluded into believing that he is a body etc.

What caused this delusion to come about ? It seems a negative matter. If the source of this delusion is an undesireable element in the universe, what was the source of this delusion ?

Originally posted by jaywill

The Hindu Self is neither subject to change over time nor is it different from person to person. It is an immortal bit separated from the parent Brahman, and deluded into believing that he is a body etc.

What caused this delusion to come about ? It seems a negative matter. If the source of this delusion is an undesireable element in the universe, what was the source of this delusion ?

That sounds like Satan, the father of lies, to me. How about you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That sounds like Satan, the father of lies, to me. How about you?

Deluded implies deluder, eh?

The following might appeal only to bored philosophical English majors, as they prepare the morning's venti macchiatos.

The stems of adjectives ending in -ed; stems derived from verbs, can often be grammatically outfitted with nouns ending in -er, implying that any state of being so described is the work of a person; in this case, Satan as the deluder of the deluded.

Such implications can be delusions. 😉

Originally posted by jaywill

The Hindu Self is neither subject to change over time nor is it different from person to person. It is an immortal bit separated from the parent Brahman, and deluded into believing that he is a body etc.

What caused this delusion to come about ? It seems a negative matter. If the source of this delusion is an undesireable element in the universe, what was the source of this delusion ?

Maya is that delusional power of the Ishwara or the Creative Spirit.
To go back a bit, the Vedanta states that there are four forms of Reality. One is the Absolute or the Brahman, then God as Creative Power known as Ishwara, then God immanent in this Universe known as Hiranya Garbha and lastly this Universe itself or Virat. These are not separate entities as such but a progression by way of logical division. A descent of God,so to speak.
The Brahman with all its possibilities has to be there in the beginning, then the Creative Spirit which will choose one possibility, and then the one immanence which will be the world-spirit and lastly the manifest world.
Compared to the Reality of the Brahman, the Reality of this manifest universe is not final as it is dependent on Ishwara who has created it. It is dynamic and ever changing. It is known as Maya or Delusion. We must tear this veil of Maya in order to experience our liberation.