How God could fail to convey His message?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
the pluralistic context 'truths' appears as a contradiction.
Are there not many truths in life and experience and interpretation?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Via my experience of OUR reality, God exists.
How do you experience my reality?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
There are not multiple truths if you are talking from an atheistic POV. God either exists or it doesn't. Atheists BELIEVE God does not exist, I know that this is incorrect.
I'm suggesting that it "exists" for your physical human experience because it is a manifestation of you.

You see, what I experience (repeatedly) is that I am part of a vast totality/oneness, that is NOT a being and not a god. From that place, anything can be and is manifested -- while there are no rules or limitations or judgments or agendas or human-thinking (try imagining that! :) ) -- it is simply creative, and there is no separation between it and all. Nothing "matters" in one way or another... as ALL IS ONE, and therefore all is safe and all is fine. It is only in the physical human realm of judgments and limitations that the drama and manifestations feel real and significant.

So, based on my experience, I can see how your physical experience includes a god, and mine does not, and everyone else can have their own unique experiences.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:49 am
When you say that you know for a fact that God exists, that is what is real and true for you, yes?
It is real for all of us, just appears that the majority are not aware of God's existence.
This is absurdly over-reaching of you.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Atheists in their belief that there is no God are wrong. Other theists that have experience of God I am almost certain would be experiencing the same God as I have, even though the experience projected to them will be different.
So in this whole world (and throughout all of time), you think that you see a truth that is more true and accurate than what all of these other people (who see differently) can see. And you don’t think that’s suspiciously self-serving at all?

Just try to remove yourself for an instant -- as if watching and hearing someone ELSE tell you that THEIR god is your god whether you realize it or not. How do they know your experience better than you do? How does that sound to you?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Certainly there are a vast range of realities - since from my experience God IS the multiverse, or at least has the ability to conjure our dimensions such that our experience is unique.
So why can't your entire experience -- all of the ideas and imagery -- be something that is conjured? Why would your "view" be unretouched, while everyone else is not seeing your singly true view? Why would your god do that?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
What is real and true for ALL of us, is that a God of some sort exists with ability to morph matter, control the dimensions that make up our reality.
As you can see from what I have explained of my own experience, the same creative potential is reflected without being a god. My experience is of being part of it and complete in it... not of there being an "it" and a "me". All ONE.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
The fact that most theists and all atheists haven't bared witness to this, does not necessarily make their belief a truth.
This is an interesting statement. "Does not necessarily make their belief a truth?" So, theirs COULD be true?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by attofishpi » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:56 am

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
the pluralistic context 'truths' appears as a contradiction.
Are there not many truths in life and experience and interpretation?
Of course there are, but you are pressing me about a binary consideration, whether there is a God or not, arn't you?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Via my experience of OUR reality, God exists.
How do you experience my reality?
Did you see that about 26 people got shot in a church the other day in the US? (that's one of many that confirm that we are indeed on the same planet, and sharing the same reality albeit in different circumstances.)
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
There are not multiple truths if you are talking from an atheistic POV. God either exists or it doesn't. Atheists BELIEVE God does not exist, I know that this is incorrect.
I'm suggesting that it "exists" for your physical human experience because it is a manifestation of you.
Oh, ergo I must have some mental condition.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
You see, what I experience (repeatedly) is that I am part of a vast totality/oneness, that is NOT a being and not a god. From that place, anything can be and is manifested -- while there are no rules or limitations or judgments or agendas or human-thinking (try imagining that! :) ) -- it is simply creative, and there is no separation between it and all. Nothing "matters" in one way or another... as ALL IS ONE, and therefore all is safe and all is fine. It is only in the physical human realm of judgments and limitations that the drama and manifestations feel real and significant. So, based on my experience, I can see how your physical experience includes a god, and mine does not, and everyone else can have their own unique experiences.
Fine - if that works for you. I agree to an extent re 'oneness' since this being has access to every atom within me. I say extent because lets face - WE are not one, however if God wanted me to know your deepest secrets, it could quite easily feed me such information. I see the only reason you would not consider labeling it God is to remain atheist and reject all the baggage that comes with theism, since you are talking rather much like a pantheist.

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:49 am
When you say that you know for a fact that God exists, that is what is real and true for you, yes?
It is real for all of us, just appears that the majority are not aware of God's existence.
This is absurdly over-reaching of you.
Ok, I do apologise, it is the truth.

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Atheists in their belief that there is no God are wrong. Other theists that have experience of God I am almost certain would be experiencing the same God as I have, even though the experience projected to them will be different.
So in this whole world (and throughout all of time), you think that you see a truth that is more true and accurate than what all of these other people (who see differently) can see. And you don’t think that’s suspiciously self-serving at all?
Where are you getting this idea that I do not see accuracy in the beliefs of others, I do.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
Just try to remove yourself for an instant -- as if watching and hearing someone ELSE tell you that THEIR god is your god whether you realize it or not. How do they know your experience better than you do? How does that sound to you?
I don't really care. Which is interesting since why do you care so much about my simple assertion - that there is a God?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Certainly there are a vast range of realities - since from my experience God IS the multiverse, or at least has the ability to conjure our dimensions such that our experience is unique.
So why can't your entire experience -- all of the ideas and imagery -- be something that is conjured? Why would your "view" be unretouched, while everyone else is not seeing your singly true view? Why would your god do that?
Mmm, maybe because I am a ****. Truly, I fucked up in my youth, and now IT has something over me, but on the flipside, I have travelled the life from the past, and have always remained true to Christianity, according to my sage, hence if again reborn, hopefully I will learn more. (starting with not being born into an atheist family)
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
What is real and true for ALL of us, is that a God of some sort exists with ability to morph matter, control the dimensions that make up our reality.
As you can see from what I have explained of my own experience, the same creative potential is reflected without being a god. My experience is of being part of it and complete in it... not of there being an "it" and a "me". All ONE.
Yes, I enjoyed LSD too. God IS in you - since it is in me, ALL matter.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
The fact that most theists and all atheists haven't bared witness to this, does not necessarily make their belief a truth.
This is an interesting statement. "Does not necessarily make their belief a truth?" So, theirs COULD be true?
Of course (the theists).

thedoc
Posts: 6312
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by thedoc » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:38 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:49 am

There are countless people whose reality and truth are different from yours. SURELY you have noticed this. This includes non-theists as well as a wide range of theists.

So would it be reasonable for us to conclude that a vast range of realities and truths exist, and that each person's "knowing" is personal and true for their own experience? If you don't think so, please explain.
Since I do not know what other people's reality and truths are there is no way for me to determine if they are the same as mine or different. It is very possible that another person's reality and truths could be exactly the same as mine or quite different, descriptions with words don't exclude either. Other people may be seeing the same thing from a different perspective, or they could be lying about what they see.

bobevenson
Posts: 7342
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by bobevenson » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:22 pm

Truth and reality can be found in the book of Revelation and "The Ouzo Prophecy".

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:17 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:56 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
Are there not many truths in life and experience and interpretation?
Of course there are, but you are pressing me about a binary consideration, whether there is a God or not, arn't you?
I was asking if you could see that people have their own truths regarding whether there is a god or not. Your answer is no.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:56 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Via my experience of OUR reality, God exists.
How do you experience my reality?
Did you see that about 26 people got shot in a church the other day in the US? (that's one of many that confirm that we are indeed on the same planet, and sharing the same reality albeit in different circumstances.)
And you think that logic means that your god must apply to me too? That, somehow, since we're sharing this time in history here, it is YOUR view that encompasses "OUR reality"... although it dismisses parts of my reality that you don't agree with?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
I'm suggesting that it "exists" for your physical human experience because it is a manifestation of you.
Oh, ergo I must have some mental condition.
Don't all humans have "mental conditions" -- as that is part of being human? People see different things, that others do not see. If we don't all see the same thing, who decides who are seeing truth, and who are blind to truth?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
what I experience...
Fine - if that works for you.
Why is my experience just "fine - if it works" for me, but what you experience is of a supreme god over all? Where did you get the idea that your experience is supreme over others?

What makes you think that what you are tapping into ISN'T manifesting what you want/need to see for yourself while manifesting for others as not any kind of god at all? The "god" experience could be just one human experience of infinite oneness.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
I agree to an extent re 'oneness' since this being has access to every atom within me. I say extent because lets face - WE are not one, however if God wanted me to know your deepest secrets, it could quite easily feed me such information.
We are not one in our physical forms -- but we may very well be one in spirit, independent of atoms.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
I see the only reason you would not consider labeling it God is to remain atheist and reject all the baggage that comes with theism, since you are talking rather much like a pantheist.
As I have explained, there is no separation between something else and me. Can you say that about your god? You identify it as a more powerful and all-knowing "other" that you are in communication with, yes? How can I call what I experience "a god" when there is no OTHER? Maybe it works for you and many humans to have your experience in such a way. But there are many other experiences possible... such as my own that I'm sharing with you. And my experience has shown me that there is no separate entity such as a god. All is one. Oneness, without human ego and other human traits, doesn't need to have or be a god.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Atheists in their belief that there is no God are wrong.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Where are you getting this idea that I do not see accuracy in the beliefs of others, I do.
From what you say.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Other theists that have experience of God I am almost certain would be experiencing the same God as I have, even though the experience projected to them will be different.
So, countless gods throughout human's history, both male and female, giving widely varying and sometimes contradictory messages suited to the agendas of those people, are all the same as your God?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
why do you care so much about my simple assertion - that there is a God?
Because you're applying it to me, of course. That's not a simple assertion. I've given thought and acknowledgement to how it can be real and true for you... in a respectful, non-delusional way. But you apparently cannot accept any possibilities other than your belief that puts you in touch with an overarching power that applies to all, which many others are not as aware as you to see.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Yes, I enjoyed LSD too.
My experience of reality and truth that I've just shared with you is something that I have and "tap into" regularly without any altering substances or mental states or gods of any kind. :) When all is experienced as one, everything is very simple and direct.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm

thedoc wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:38 pm
Since I do not know what other people's reality and truths are there is no way for me to determine if they are the same as mine or different. It is very possible that another person's reality and truths could be exactly the same as mine or quite different, descriptions with words don't exclude either. Other people may be seeing the same thing from a different perspective, or they could be lying about what they see.
I always wonder what the heck people intend when they say "people have their own truths." Do they actually mean that the empirical facts of a given case are verifiably different for different people, purely premised on their differences of "perception"? :shock:

If so, that's plainly ridiculous. My wishing to make the world flat will not squish it flat for me, while it remains spherical for you. Nor will my belief (based on my ingestion of LSD, presumably) prevent me from hitting the earth like a hefty bag full of Campbell's soup if I jump off a building.

So whatever the real facts are, they remain real for everyone, regardless of perception.

Now, take that, as Lacewing wants you to do, to the question of God.

Can God "exist" for those who believe in Him, but not "exist" for those who do not? Plainly, that's stupid -- if, by "exist" we mean "actually to be present, or to be real." It won't matter how much I want God to exist, nor how fervently I believe, nor how passionately I devote myself to the "perspective" that he does, if He doesn't. :shock:

But equally, if He does, He exists regardless of anybody else's disposition to the contrary. Moreover, His real nature will be His real nature; not a variable property that changes depending on what the believer of a particular sect of group wishes to believe.

That's why there are both right views and wrong views of God. We can debate which view is right, and which are wrong; but we cannot rationally debate whether His existence itself changes with our preferences, nor can we argue that the existence of "many views" of God proves there's no truth about God's actual nature, if He does exist. To argue either of those points would just be brainless, as I'm sure you can see....

I'm not sure everybody sees that, though. Some folks are just not rational, and let their dedication to some ideology of pluralistic relativism outstrip their ability to think clearly.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am

Dear Dishonest I.C.,

Oh how you love to carry on and on with your puffed up absurdity.

Being reasonable is so simple, but you convolute it to create confusion and places to hide.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
I always wonder what the heck people intend when they say "people have their own truths."
Oh, do you? :lol:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
Do they actually mean that the empirical facts of a given case are verifiably different for different people, purely premised on their differences of "perception"? :shock:
No, they mean that personal beliefs/realities/experiences that are not in the physical realm of public observation are dependent on personal perception and reality.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
If so, that's plainly ridiculous.
That's not what they mean. But you like to spin it into something it's not so that you can rant about how ridiculous it is.

Honestly, I.C., your games are so freakin' transparent. You really need to "up" your game. You sound like a used sock salesman.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
My wishing to make the world flat will not squish it flat for me, while it remains spherical for you.
Well, evidently it does work that way for you.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
Nor will my belief (based on my ingestion of LSD, presumably) prevent me from hitting the earth like a hefty bag full of Campbell's soup if I jump off a building.
Oh here we go -- you had to get in your little dig about LSD. For your information -- which you'll surely convolute to your liking -- my most profound experiences into seeing that there is no god, occurred when I had a near-death experience, where I was dying slowly, leaving this physical world, and merging into a vast ONENESS and COMPLETENESS... where there was no separateness or human limitations/fears/agendas of any kind. And in the years since surviving that, the profound experiences and heightened realizations of oneness have continued and expanded in my life.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
So whatever the real facts are, they remain real for everyone, regardless of perception.
We're not talking about real facts here.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
Can God "exist" for those who believe in Him, but not "exist" for those who do not? Plainly, that's stupid -- if, by "exist" we mean "actually to be present, or to be real."
No, it's not stupid. And by "exist" in this context, no we DO NOT mean "actually to be present, or to be real" -- because he is not physically present or real! Stop being so dishonest and manipulative. If he's not physically here such that everyone sees him and agrees "Oh yes, he exists!", then we're not dealing with facts.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
His real nature will be His real nature; not a variable property that changes depending on what the believer of a particular sect of group wishes to believe.
So you say. You can say whatever you want about something that doesn't physically exist -- and which can be defined and characterized in any number of ways depending on the agenda of the person making the claims.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
That's why there are both right views and wrong views of God. We can debate which view is right, and which are wrong; but we cannot rationally debate whether His existence itself changes with our preferences, nor can we argue that the existence of "many views" of God proves there's no truth about God's actual nature, if He does exist. To argue either of those points would just be brainless, as I'm sure you can see....
So we can debate a non-existent non-physical idea, and whether the views about it are right or wrong, but we cannot debate whether it's a case of perception and personal experience... because that would just be brainless. Your twisted dishonesty is just staggering. I can barely stand talking with you.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:56 pm
I'm not sure everybody sees that, though. Some folks are just not rational, and let their dedication to some ideology of pluralistic relativism outstrip their ability to think clearly.
Your dedication to your own self-serving ideas drip from everything you write with so much foul thickness that it's best to stand clear of the slimy pool that builds up around you. If you can't distinguish and conceive beyond your own ideas (which are NOT facts), then you're clearly only in service to your ego -- which makes dealing with you nothing more than a dirty little charade.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am

Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
So whatever the real facts are, they remain real for everyone, regardless of perception.
We're not talking about real facts here.
Well, then, you're not talking about the real existence of God. You're only talking about people who imagine something that isn't there.

In other words, you've begged the question by presuming God doesn't exist, rather than proving it, and then modelled your belief in multiple "perspectives" on the confidence that your presumption is already correct. But if so, all "perspectives" are merely delusions. One is never more "true" than another, because none is "true" at all.

So then, you're not actually being open-minded to different "perspectives" despite your protestations to the contrary. For essentially, you've dismissed them all in advance.
...by "exist" in this context, no we DO NOT mean "actually to be present, or to be real" -- because he is not physically present or real!
There it is. You've presumed your conclusion, not proved it, and moved on from there. The problem is that nobody has a reason to care what "reality" you're talking about, because by your own account, you're not even speaking about the real. You're only asking if different deluded individuals have a right to their particular variant of delusion...an uninteresting question to anyone whose interest is in reality.

In other words, people are not entitled to have their delusions respected. Delusions, by definition, do not warrant respect: people are always better without them. But you've forgotten to get around to the business of proving whether or not what they're debating is reality or a delusion in the first place.
So we can debate a non-existent non-physical idea,
There it is again. You've presumed there's no real God, so you can't imagine how we can debate a "non-existent" idea. And you'd be right, if you were right about there being no God. But you haven't done anything to prove there isn't, so you're just begging the essential question.

But if you prove that the Supreme Being does not exist, then perhaps your complaints would have warrant. I would say, "good luck with that," but you don't need luck...you need reasons and evidence. And if you manage to find them, which nobody so far has succeeded in doing, and against all odds you manage to succeed, then you're very unlucky indeed anyway. For then you have put yourself in an empty, cold and uncaring universe, from which you are personally destined to perish shortly and forever, without hope of recourse. There's nothing lucky about that.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by attofishpi » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:56 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
How do you experience my reality?
Did you see that about 26 people got shot in a church the other day in the US? (that's one of many that confirm that we are indeed on the same planet, and sharing the same reality albeit in different circumstances.)
And you think that logic means that your god must apply to me too? That, somehow, since we're sharing this time in history here, it is YOUR view that encompasses "OUR reality"... although it dismisses parts of my reality that you don't agree with?
No God does not need to apply to any non-believer, its your choice. From knowledge imparted from the sage, how we live this life determines our destiny in the next (reincarnation), so one can continue down an endless cycle of lives lived and remain a non-believer, perhaps you will only discover God via physicist discoveries far into the future.
Out of interest, do you believe in reincarnation?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
I'm suggesting that it "exists" for your physical human experience because it is a manifestation of you.
Oh, ergo I must have some mental condition.
Don't all humans have "mental conditions" -- as that is part of being human? People see different things, that others do not see. If we don't all see the same thing, who decides who are seeing truth, and who are blind to truth?
Seek and ye shall find. Ergo - don't seek and don't believe and ok, remain blissfully unaware of the truth.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
what I experience...
Fine - if that works for you.
Why is my experience just "fine - if it works" for me, but what you experience is of a supreme god over all? Where did you get the idea that your experience is supreme over others?
What other experiences? Please provide an example.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
I agree to an extent re 'oneness' since this being has access to every atom within me. I say extent because lets face - WE are not one, however if God wanted me to know your deepest secrets, it could quite easily feed me such information.
We are not one in our physical forms -- but we may very well be one in spirit, independent of atoms.
Rubbish. Speak to a physicist, a chemist and a biologist - if you listen attentively you will discover we would not exist without matter...however, these atoms break down to sub atomic particles, a vibrating pulsating field of energy that yes IS a part of the oneness of God.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
I see the only reason you would not consider labeling it God is to remain atheist and reject all the baggage that comes with theism, since you are talking rather much like a pantheist.
As I have explained, there is no separation between something else and me. Can you say that about your god? You identify it as a more powerful and all-knowing "other" that you are in communication with, yes? How can I call what I experience "a god" when there is no OTHER? Maybe it works for you and many humans to have your experience in such a way. But there are many other experiences possible... such as my own that I'm sharing with you. And my experience has shown me that there is no separate entity such as a god. All is one. Oneness, without human ego and other human traits, doesn't need to have or be a god.
Seek and ye shall find. Don't believe and you won't discover the truth about this "oneness" - that I agree with.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Atheists in their belief that there is no God are wrong.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Where are you getting this idea that I do not see accuracy in the beliefs of others, I do.
From what you say.
Understand English comprehension -there is no contradiction in my above statements - it does not imply that I see accuracy in the beliefs of ALL others.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Other theists that have experience of God I am almost certain would be experiencing the same God as I have, even though the experience projected to them will be different.
So, countless gods throughout human's history, both male and female, giving widely varying and sometimes contradictory messages suited to the agendas of those people, are all the same as your God?
Yes, it is the same God. Even witch-doctors and the like in remote jungles that possibly experience God, experience God in a way associated with their tribes beliefs, even if they believe in many Gods.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
why do you care so much about my simple assertion - that there is a God?
Because you're applying it to me, of course. That's not a simple assertion. I've given thought and acknowledgement to how it can be real and true for you... in a respectful, non-delusional way. But you apparently cannot accept any possibilities other than your belief that puts you in touch with an overarching power that applies to all, which many others are not as aware as you to see.
Sure, but I am not p_reaching to you to believe, I just don't care what you believe, but I would prefer you to know the truth.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
We're not talking about real facts here.
Well, then, you're not talking about the real existence of God.
I'm talking about what is real to each person. My experience is not a fact... it is my experience and is real to me. Your God is not a fact... it is your experience and real to you. Can you really not make the distinction?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
all "perspectives" are merely delusions. One is never more "true" than another, because none is "true" at all.
OR... all are true in one way or another to the perceiver(s). Can you seriously not see that there are things that are true for you that are not true for other people? It's common in the personal experiences of all humans. Why must you try to elevate your personal truths to be bigger than that?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
...by "exist" in this context, no we DO NOT mean "actually to be present, or to be real" -- because he is not physically present or real!
There it is. You've presumed your conclusion, not proved it, and moved on from there.
There WHAT is? This god you speak of is not PHYSICALLY present or PHYSICALLY real! So no, in the physical context, he does not exist. That's why I'm talking about what is real to each person spiritually, as opposed to what is physically real to everyone.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
In other words, people are not entitled to have their delusions respected. Delusions, by definition, do not warrant respect: people are always better without them.
The only reason we're talking about what is real for you is because you say it's real for me -- and that's just the height of arrogance and ignorance. I'm trying to acknowledge that we all have our own valid profound experiences (in whatever way they manifest) -- which is a respectful way to view it. You're denying that -- claiming that anyone who doesn't have your view is wrong -- which is disrespectful. Yet, notice how you accused me of being disrespectful, when you are clearly being so.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
So we can debate a non-existent non-physical idea,
There it is again. You've presumed there's no real God, so you can't imagine how we can debate a "non-existent" idea.
I'm talking about it being physical. It is not physically here. It is not a fact and it is not physically existent such that we can all see it and agree it is here. It is a spiritual idea/experience.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
if you were right about there being no God. But you haven't done anything to prove there isn't, so you're just begging the essential question.
I just told you about my experiences that have shown me that there is no god. That's my experience. I'm not saying that has to be your experience. Your experience is that there is a god... so that's your experience. Why do you think your experience is any more valid than anyone else's?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
But if you prove that the Supreme Being does not exist, then perhaps your complaints would have warrant.
You already know that it makes no sense to tell someone that they have to prove something DOESN'T exist. That is a really, really weak argument for you to make. Challenging someone to a nonsense challenge so that your claims can stand?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
then you have put yourself in an empty, cold and uncaring universe, from which you are personally destined to perish shortly and forever, without hope of recourse.
This is your dreary trip, not mine.

I feel completely comfortable and complete with what I have experienced, and I won't waste time explaining it further to you because you are too attached to your ideas and structures, and elevating them to reign over other people.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am

Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
all "perspectives" are merely delusions. One is never more "true" than another, because none is "true" at all.
OR... all are true in one way or another to the perceiver(s). Can you seriously not see that there are things that are true for you that are not true for other people? It's common in the personal experiences of all humans. Why must you try to elevate your personal truths to be bigger than that?
What you are suggesting is in no way different from a delusion.

A "delusion" is when somebody believes something passionately, but its' empirically unreal. You can try to dignify that by calling it "personal truth," but that's just a word game, when it comes to reality. The real truth is that it in no way represents the truth about how things actually are; so why should anyone care how many people believe it? It will change nothing at all, whether they do or don't.
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
This god you speak of is not PHYSICALLY present or PHYSICALLY real!
That is your assumption, I realize. I do not agree it is true. Reality will decide which one of us is right, eventually.
The only reason we're talking about what is real for you is because you say it's real for me -- and that's just the height of arrogance and ignorance.
Not at all. Your own claims are objective ones. You claim I'm objectively "arrogant" and objectively "ignorant." And you insist that what I find "real" is "not real for me." But I must assume you mean more than to say that you just want not to believe in these real things -- that you want to say that I'm objectively incorrect.

Is that not fair? :shock:

But when you do, you commit the very "sin" of which you accuse me. You think you're factually, objectively right. And you insist that I'm not.

So you've sold the farm.
I'm trying to acknowledge that we all have our own valid profound experiences (in whatever way they manifest) -- which is a respectful way to view it. You're denying that -- claiming that anyone who doesn't have your view is wrong -- which is disrespectful. Yet, notice how you accused me of being disrespectful, when you are clearly being so.
So...are you saying that I'm objectively wrong for doing that? If you're NOT saying that, then what are you saying instead?

But again, you've now destroyed your own case.
I just told you about my experiences that have shown me that there is no god. That's my experience.
How?
Why do you think your experience is any more valid than anyone else's?
I don't. I think that the truth is more "valid" than EVERYONE'S delusions...including mine, if I have any.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:36 am
But if you prove that the Supreme Being does not exist, then perhaps your complaints would have warrant.
You already know that it makes no sense to tell someone that they have to prove something DOESN'T exist. That is a really, really weak argument for you to make.
No: that's what makes it particularly strong. For it is you who have claimed to know there is no God. I'm just asking you the very reasonable question, "How did you come to this spectacular achievement of knowledge?"

That's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, given your claim. For that's what a reasonable person does when faced with a knowledge claim.

You say your "experience" told you. Well, I'm just asking what "experience" that was, and how it convinced you that God was objectively (oops! :oops: ) not real.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am

attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
From knowledge imparted from the sage, how we live this life determines our destiny in the next (reincarnation), so one can continue down an endless cycle of lives lived and remain a non-believer, perhaps you will only discover God via physicist discoveries far into the future.
Perhaps you will discover that God is not what you think. Perhaps belief has no importance at all. Surely what matters is who a person is. Belief in one thing or another does not determine or assure who a person is.
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
Out of interest, do you believe in reincarnation?
Seems like one possibility. Some may do it a lot. Some may do it a little. Some may not do it that way. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules for how it works. It's fascinating -- yet not a concept to get all fanatical about.
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
People see different things, that others do not see. If we don't all see the same thing, who decides who are seeing truth, and who are blind to truth?
Seek and ye shall find. Ergo - don't seek and don't believe and ok, remain blissfully unaware of the truth.
Your little quip didn't answer the question -- it's just a display of your cocky authority again. MOST PEOPLE SEEK AND FIND, Atto! And they may find truth that is different than yours.
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
What other experiences? Please provide an example.
Example #1: The profound/spiritual experiences people have that do not include a god. Example #2: My own profound/spiritual experiences which you just said is "fine if it works for me". Where did you get the idea that your experience is supreme over those other experiences?
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
We are not one in our physical forms -- but we may very well be one in spirit, independent of atoms.
Rubbish. Speak to a physicist, a chemist and a biologist - if you listen attentively you will discover we would not exist without matter...however, these atoms break down to sub atomic particles, a vibrating pulsating field of energy that yes IS a part of the oneness of God.
Can scientists measure spirit? Why are you so quick to say "Rubbish", and then you end up saying something very similar to what I said? Whether you call it a field of energy or spiritual energy, it can be conceived of as a completely connected oneness (in contrast to the separation we experience in our physical forms). You don't need to call that energy God, but you do. I refer to it too... and it's not a god to me.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Seek and ye shall find. Don't believe and you won't discover the truth about this "oneness" - that I agree with.
I've just told you that I know about this oneness. I don't need to believe in a god (or as you do) to find it. THIS IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE TO YOU.

This shouldn't threaten your own methodology. Likewise, your methodology doesn't need to be superimposed onto everyone as the ONLY VALID PATH. It would be fascinating if you could really question why you need to believe that about your path.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Understand English comprehension -there is no contradiction in my above statements
Your statements could be read multiple ways. Your snotty retort is unfounded.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
So, countless gods throughout human's history, both male and female, giving widely varying and sometimes contradictory messages suited to the agendas of those people, are all the same as your God?
Yes, it is the same God. Even witch-doctors and the like in remote jungles that possibly experience God, experience God in a way associated with their tribes beliefs, even if they believe in many Gods.
So why are the messages and agendas different? Don't ask for fucking examples... you KNOW there are different messages and agendas across time and cultures.
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
I am not p_reaching to you to believe, I just don't care what you believe, but I would prefer you to know the truth.
Perhaps I do! :D You are not the ultimate knower and judge of that... even though you might like to fancy yourself as such.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
A "delusion" is when somebody believes something passionately, but its' empirically unreal.

why should anyone care how many people believe it? It will change nothing at all, whether they do or don't.
Because people matter, and the way they use their ideas matter in the moment. Ideas are vast and varied because people are amazingly vast and varied, and that should be celebrated and benefited from. The ideas themselves shouldn't be worshipped and lorded over other people. There is more truth from a greater collective vision. Don't you think?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
This god you speak of is not PHYSICALLY present or PHYSICALLY real!
That is your assumption, I realize. I do not agree it is true.
What would typically be your criteria for establishing someone/something as being "physically" present? Does your god meet that criteria?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
I must assume you mean more than to say that you just want not to believe in these real things
Look at the dishonesty in your statement. You are accusing me of not wanting to believe in "real things". Of course that's NOT MY VIEW... that's YOUR view.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
You think you're factually, objectively right. And you insist that I'm not.
I have clearly said that I don't see either of our experiences as a fact. And I think delusions are part of the limited human experience for all of us.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
I'm trying to acknowledge that we all have our own valid profound experiences (in whatever way they manifest) -- which is a respectful way to view it. You're denying that -- claiming that anyone who doesn't have your view is wrong -- which is disrespectful. Yet, notice how you accused me of being disrespectful, when you are clearly being so.
So...are you saying that I'm objectively wrong for doing that?
I'm pointing out your behavior of disrespect (which you accused me of).

Do I think it's wrong for you to claim that anyone who doesn't have your view is wrong? I think it's inaccurate and foolish of you to do so. In everyday life, someone could say such a thing and I would ignore them. But in a philosophical forum discussion, it seems (to me) like a stunted and inflexible attitude to have. I can see areas of common values -- but the theists here (and mainly you) seem to commonly accuse non-theists of having no values or morals (which, again, is dishonest). So it's as if you are immediately invalidating what non-theists say, because there is no belief in a god.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
I just told you about my experiences that have shown me that there is no god. That's my experience.
How?
Because, as I've explained, I experienced being a complete totality with no separation in the oneness. If there's no "self"... and nothing separate... if all is oneness... then there is no separate god.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:59 am
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 am
Why do you think your experience is any more valid than anyone else's?
I don't. I think that the truth is more "valid" than EVERYONE'S delusions...including mine, if I have any.
That is the most awesome thing I've heard you say. :)

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by attofishpi » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 am

Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
From knowledge imparted from the sage, how we live this life determines our destiny in the next (reincarnation), so one can continue down an endless cycle of lives lived and remain a non-believer, perhaps you will only discover God via physicist discoveries far into the future.
Perhaps you will discover that God is not what you think. Perhaps belief has no importance at all. Surely what matters is who a person is. Belief in one thing or another does not determine or assure who a person is.
Yes, from my 20yrs of experience of this entity, I would not be surprised if we are in a simulation and 'God' is an A.I.
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
People see different things, that others do not see. If we don't all see the same thing, who decides who are seeing truth, and who are blind to truth?
Seek and ye shall find. Ergo - don't seek and don't believe and ok, remain blissfully unaware of the truth.
Your little quip didn't answer the question -- it's just a display of your cocky authority again. MOST PEOPLE SEEK AND FIND, Atto! And they may find truth that is different than yours.
No, it was just a quote from the bible.
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:50 am
What other experiences? Please provide an example.
Example #1: The profound/spiritual experiences people have that do not include a god. Example #2: My own profound/spiritual experiences which you just said is "fine if it works for me". Where did you get the idea that your experience is supreme over those other experiences?
And yet you remain in the camp of believing there is no God, and I remain knowing that there is.
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
We are not one in our physical forms -- but we may very well be one in spirit, independent of atoms.
Rubbish. Speak to a physicist, a chemist and a biologist - if you listen attentively you will discover we would not exist without matter...however, these atoms break down to sub atomic particles, a vibrating pulsating field of energy that yes IS a part of the oneness of God.
Can scientists measure spirit? Why are you so quick to say "Rubbish", and then you end up saying something very similar to what I said? Whether you call it a field of energy or spiritual energy, it can be conceived of as a completely connected oneness (in contrast to the separation we experience in our physical forms). You don't need to call that energy God, but you do. I refer to it too... and it's not a god to me.
I call it God, because this entity is intelligent - there is an intelligence capable of controlling matter and communicating with me - its not just a non-intelligent 'vibration' of energy.
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Seek and ye shall find. Don't believe and you won't discover the truth about this "oneness" - that I agree with.
I've just told you that I know about this oneness. I don't need to believe in a god (or as you do) to find it. THIS IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE TO YOU.

This shouldn't threaten your own methodology. Likewise, your methodology doesn't need to be superimposed onto everyone as the ONLY VALID PATH. It would be fascinating if you could really question why you need to believe that about your path.
I'm not superimposing anything on you, am I?
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:53 am
So, countless gods throughout human's history, both male and female, giving widely varying and sometimes contradictory messages suited to the agendas of those people, are all the same as your God?
Yes, it is the same God. Even witch-doctors and the like in remote jungles that possibly experience God, experience God in a way associated with their tribes beliefs, even if they believe in many Gods.
So why are the messages and agendas different? Don't ask for fucking examples... you KNOW there are different messages and agendas across time and cultures.
Yes, that's 'man' for you, adding his own spin and agenda on things to suite his own will. Its still the same God.
Lacewing wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:23 am
attofishpi wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:37 am
I am not p_reaching to you to believe, I just don't care what you believe, but I would prefer you to know the truth.
Perhaps I do! :D You are not the ultimate knower and judge of that... even though you might like to fancy yourself as such.
You think you know that there is no God?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How God could fail to convey His message?

Post by Lacewing » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:36 am

attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 am
Yes, from my 20yrs of experience of this entity, I would not be surprised if we are in a simulation and 'God' is an A.I.
Interesting! Can you say a bit more about this?
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 am
And yet you remain in the camp of believing there is no God, and I remain knowing that there is.
Why do you say that I'm "believing", and you are "knowing"? Why can't you be fair and say that we simply see things differently?
attofishpi wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 am
I call it God, because this entity is intelligent - there is an intelligence capable of controlling matter and communicating with me - its not just a non-intelligent 'vibration' of energy.
I'm totally with you except for the "entity" party. What I experienced was definitely AWARE. It's just that there were NOT typical human thoughts associated with it. Human concepts weren't applicable in that place. When you think of all the things that go through a human's brain, why WOULD they be applicable to a place of completeness and oneness? Aren't they probably just part of the package of this physical reality?

You said "there is an intelligence capable of controlling matter and communicating with me". I experience that too, Atto... but I see it as a natural awareness and vibration that we all have access to and can plug into, because surely we are all of the same energetic stuff, and we are very likely exchanging all kinds of information and energy all the time. Like a network. I'm guessing that WE are all part of that oneness, creating and expanding... manifesting these Earth lives. If someone has to assign the idea of an entity... then it would be us. Not something separate. "Otherness" seems associated with the physical realm, while "oneness" seems applicable for the spiritual realm.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests