The moral argument for the existence of God

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:51 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:03 am
Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:25 pm

I will agree with this, when it applies to sentient life.

Have a look at this link and tell us what religion the babies in this link are following when they have no idea of what a God is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY

Regards
DL
Thanks DL..for your input here.


Babies are not religious...neither is there a baby there in what does appear to look like a baby....baby is just a concept, and concepts don't know anything.
The baby is being a perfect example of how Life is totally living itself without claiming or attaching any labels to it...Life never claims it is living... life is without concept just like the baby, all the while there is an innate knowingness that lies hidden deep within nondual aka concept-less life....when all labels are dropped life is functioning perfectly well on it's own back...it is functioning as a total absolute nondual life...but when concepts arise...nonduality becomes the world of opposites...aka dual in nature, the one becomes two, made up of the knower and the known. The concept is the known, known by the unknowable awareness of that concept.

This video is the perfect example that proves awareness is all knowing. Awareness being the original self before self awareness of other (ego kicks in...

Knowingness is absolute...but knowing you know is relative...which is illusory.

One of the comments from that video says...Genesis 2:13, knowledge (consciousness) of good and evil,.................... We will surely die. No one have defy death, except for one.

What this comment means is that ''Absolute Knowing'' is tacit aka Awareness......whereas knowing you know as in being ''self-aware'' is relative aka(conscious of) knowledge.
It is true that consciousness comes and goes, appears to be born and appears to die...but that is all appearances within AWARENESS which never changes or dies.Awareness is the Absolute Knowing...prior to anything known....known cannot know, ''relative knowns'' are already known in the moment they appear one with the absolute knowing. Therefore, relative knowns are illusory appearances of the Absolute.



My point is you cannot have Relative Knowing without Absolute Knowing. If everything is just relative..then the opposite is also true. Demonstrated by the babies preference to like one idea, while having an aversion to the opposite.

Opposites have to exist in the same moment. Absolutism makes that possible. Then it is free will that chooses to favour one idea over the other. Aversion to what is not preferred does not imply HATRED towards it, it simply means, that it is not conducive with the natural absolute law of nature which is essentially neutral, peaceful, and harmonious...

.
Now I see why you refused to answer my other question above, you could not B S your way out of it the way you tried with your response here. Your B B will not baffle the good minds here.

"life is without concept just like the baby,"

You began with that foolishness and went to full idiocy by the time you finished.

If that baby and other babies did not have some kind of concept, their reactions would be chaotic. They are not as all babies react the same way. You have been refuted but are so mentally lost you will not recognize that fact.

It seems that you have, unfortunately, lost the ability to learn new things.

Perhaps that fear based loss is why you ran from my moral question above.

Regards
DL
Okay, it seems you have no idea what I am talking about in my posts, but thanks for taking part and putting your views across. I do not agree with your latest reply above, so I guess the discussion is over for now.Unless you have any more questions that you would like answering.

What I meant by the baby having no concept was it has no concept of itself separate from what is happening. I know I didn't say that but that is essentially what I talk about most of the time..the illusion of separation.

The babies responses are just happening. They're automatic, the baby at this stage of it's development has no concept he is choosing the actions taken.

Actions are one unitary movement, but when the sense of other self kicks in, there is the idea that I the individual one is doing those actions. . . but that is never what's happening, that's the illusion, there is no other self.

.

All life is in constant flux as one unitary movement...simply because there is no beginning to where life started nor is there any end to where it finishes... these are simply known concepts by that which has no concept.

.

That which has no concept is the knower of all concepts as they arise...when oneness / nonduality becomes conscious of itself as illusory other...aka duality.

.

Apologies for not including everything I mean when putting this into words..sometimes I just forget to add everything I mean to say.

.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:48 pm .Unless you have any more questions that you would like answering.
No. You have ignored enough questions to show how pathetic of an apologist you are.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:29 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:48 pm .Unless you have any more questions that you would like answering.
No. You have ignored enough questions to show how pathetic of an apologist you are.

Regards
DL
As I've said before I genuinely cannot answer a question when I do not understand what is being implied. Sometimes I simply cannot grasp the intended meanings to other peoples posts....this doesn't mean I'm deliberately trying to avoid the posts...sorry if you find it irritating which you clearly do that you have to reply in a derogatory fashion. I can only resonate with what I personally understand, if I don't understand what's being asked...then I'm not going to waste my time and energy pretending I do ..I'm certainly not a mind reader either...and I do have more important things to do with my life beyond this forum.

I don't expect anyone to understand what I write either...I'm just discussing a subject I feel very passionate about ...no one here is forced to reply to me.But I'm more than happy to engage with others if they do.
.
Post Reply