God is an Impossibility

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6054
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:42 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
You are the possible.
So why are you clamoring for the impossible.

Why the possible cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive, note the clue from Hume.
This psychological drive, or that which directs us towards an end point, observes the actualization of that want (in this case God) as directed towards a potential existence (union with God).

Want observes a deficient state of existence, that exists through the human condition, as part of a whole which moves towards a unification through potentiality.

Nature dictates if I hunger for food, I must eat.

If I desire companionship, I must have companions.

If I desire security, I must have security.

If I desire God, I must have God.

Food, friends, security...all these desires point towards their potential existence as a natural part of the human condition. The "God Drive" or the desire to "Unify with the Divine as Divine" is inherent within the human condition.

You have to remember, this "psychological drive" is inherent within the state of man an is completely natural as a biproduct of evolution.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:24 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am
Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
It's easy to counter it. Your point is to say that "God is an Impossibility", yet to start off, you assume that he exists, because you use the age old measure, of what they say it is to be a god. If their version of a god doesn't exist, how could you say you knew the measure of a real god, as mankind might not know of the proper measure of a god. So your whole idea is a falsehood, either you know what they know as criteria to judge their god or you don't know the criteria required in judging a real god. Your suffering from mankind's conceptual limitations, you're using his concepts to disprove his concepts. And to assume that a real god has to necessarily abide by mans concepts, could be folly indeed. All you really could hope to achieve is to possibly disprove their version of their god, not the existence of a real god. ;-)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:16 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:25 am

Yeah, it's a real illusion.
So you went home scared and accepting the rope is a real snake?
Both the snake and the rope have to be part of the illusion to know the difference.

Didn't run home scared, walked home calmly and relieved to have known the difference.
A person-X who is scared of snakes would not have known the difference at all.
He could have ran home to tell his parents he saw a snake [real to him] and warn them to take note when they walk that path where the 'snake' is.

Meanwhile whilst being on video camera someone-Y has picked up that piece of rope [for some reason] thus X's parents would not be able to verify whether it was a rope or a snake when they went to that specific spot to check.

Therefore X will continue to believe he saw a real snake when it was merely illusion.

Six months later, X met with Y and other friends to watch Y's videos [for various reasons] and it so happened X noted Y picked up a rope at the exactly same spot and the video has date and time displayed.
Then only did X know what he thought was a real snake then was actually a rope, thus he experienced 'seeing' an illusion.

As one will note it is easy to explain an empirical sensual illusion if the evidences are available for verification.

Now with the experience of the illusory God, it difficult to explain because there is nothing to make comparison within a transcendental illusion.
Such an transcendental illusion is thought & reason based which s very subtle and with a terrible psychological threat at stake, theists will spontaneously resist explanations.
This is why you are unable to see through the transcendental illusion.

Most theists who give up God did not understand its underlying illusory nature, but give up for various other reasons, e.g. irrational, contradiction, problem of evil, etc.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:43 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 am
Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real.

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
  • 1. Relative perfection
    2. Absolute perfection
1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all.
Absolute perfection is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically.
Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.

Generally, perfection is attributed to God. Any god with less than perfect attributes would be subjected to being inferior to another's god.
As such, God has to be absolutely perfect which is the ontological god, i.e. god is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.


So,
  • P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
    P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Can any theist or non-theist counter the above?
It's easy to counter it. Your point is to say that "God is an Impossibility", yet to start off, you assume that he exists, because you use the age old measure, of what they say it is to be a god.
If their version of a god doesn't exist, how could you say you knew the measure of a real god, as mankind might not know of the proper measure of a god. So your whole idea is a falsehood, either you know what they know as criteria to judge their god or you don't know the criteria required in judging a real god. Your suffering from mankind's conceptual limitations, you're using his concepts to disprove his concepts. And to assume that a real god has to necessarily abide by mans concepts, could be folly indeed.

All you really could hope to achieve is to possibly disprove their version of their god, not the existence of a real god. ;-)
Nope, I did not assume God exists.
I am countering the theists' illusory belief that God exists as real.

Note my argument is based on the point that ALL beliefs in God will by default end up with a claim of an absolute and perfect God which is supposed to be real. Any other version of a real absolute and perfect God will be a God that is inferior to another God.

Anyone who claimed a lesser than perfect or absolute God will be subjected to be ridiculed by other theists who claim their God is the greatest.
E.g. Muslims claimed their Allah [as in the Quran] is the greatest and superior than the false Christian God in the current Bible. If the Christians do not claim a perfect and absolute [maximally greatest] God than which no greater exists, then they have to admit their God is inferior to the Islamic God and other theists who claim their God is perfect.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm
Impossibility is impossible through the possible.
You are the possible.
So why are you clamoring for the impossible.

Why the possible cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive, note the clue from Hume.
This psychological drive, or that which directs us towards an end point, observes the actualization of that want (in this case God) as directed towards a potential existence (union with God).

Want observes a deficient state of existence, that exists through the human condition, as part of a whole which moves towards a unification through potentiality.

Nature dictates if I hunger for food, I must eat.

If I desire companionship, I must have companions.

If I desire security, I must have security.

If I desire God, I must have God.

Food, friends, security...all these desires point towards their potential existence as a natural part of the human condition. The "God Drive" or the desire to "Unify with the Divine as Divine" is inherent within the human condition.

You have to remember, this "psychological drive" is inherent within the state of man an is completely natural as a biproduct of evolution.
Good that you agree there is this "psychological drive."

This "psychological drive" can also drive humans to the extreme.
For example the hunger drive compels humans to eat but they must eat reasonably but some are driven to gluttony and end with obesity resulting in all sort of diseases and early premature death.
This is why the middle path to avoid staying in the extreme is necessary.

I agree the psychological drive of existentiality that end up with theism is of critical necessity for the majority to deal with an existential crisis since the past till now.
However the reality is the cons of the necessary theism is outweighing its pros as we evolve into the future.
To avoid the terrible evils associated with theism we need to divert the existential psychological drive to non-theistic beliefs and practices that do not have any side effects of evil at all.

I am not saying all theistic beliefs has evil potentials.
What happen is the presence of theism as a whole embolden the cancerous and malignant aspects [e.g. Islam and others] to do damage to humanity.

The point that there are non-theistic approaches without evil side effects to deal with the inherent existential crisis give hope that theism can be weaned off and be replaced with those benign non-theistic approaches.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:01 am

Veritas Aequitas.....

I'm not referring to real snakes or fake rope snakes which is conceptual story.

I'm talking about knowing the difference between real and unreal...the snake & rope was a metaphorical pointing...pointing to that which is this awareness right here, aware of the story?

What do you think this awareness is? ...does it have a name, does it have a form? does it have a beginning? does it have an end?

What is this that is typing these words and knows every word as they are being read?



.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:19 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:01 am
Veritas Aequitas.....

I'm not referring to real snakes or fake rope snakes which is conceptual story.

I'm talking about knowing the difference between real and unreal...the snake & rope was a metaphorical pointing...pointing to that which is this awareness right here, aware of the story?

What do you think this awareness is? ...does it have a name, does it have a form? does it have a beginning? does it have an end?

What is this that is typing these words and knows every word as they are being read?
You are still stuck with 'what' "it" and the likes.

This 'awareness' is sustained by an active human system.
There is no such 'awareness' if there is no active human system.
That's the answer.
Why do you need to speculate whether there must be a 'what' or "it" underlying it in the ultimate sense?
You are doing it because there is an existential psychological drive that compels you to do it.

Btw, will reality collapse immediately if you stop thinking about a 'what' or 'it' underlying human awareness.
If you do away with a 'what' or 'it' nothing will happen and you will have one less burden, bondage and more freedom.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Reflex » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:59 am

The point that there are non-theistic approaches without evil side effects to deal with the inherent existential crisis give hope that theism can be weaned off and be replaced with those benign non-theistic approaches.
Imagine that! An up without a down!

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:19 am
You are still stuck with 'what' "it" and the likes.

This 'awareness' is sustained by an active human system.
There is no such 'awareness' if there is no active human system.
That's the answer.
Why do you need to speculate whether there must be a 'what' or "it" underlying it in the ultimate sense?
You are doing it because there is an existential psychological drive that compels you to do it.

Btw, will reality collapse immediately if you stop thinking about a 'what' or 'it' underlying human awareness.
If you do away with a 'what' or 'it' nothing will happen and you will have one less burden, bondage and more freedom.
Yes I know, and that's what I was showing you also in my response.

There is no me without you, there is no you without me.

I was simply pointing to same...using the snake and rope metaphor...then you decided to go off on one big story telling episode again about people having phobias of snakes which was irrelevant to the actual point.

Can we not just cut to the chase and stop with the story telling?


.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6054
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:50 am
You are the possible.
So why are you clamoring for the impossible.

Why the possible cling to an impossibility is due to a psychological drive, note the clue from Hume.
This psychological drive, or that which directs us towards an end point, observes the actualization of that want (in this case God) as directed towards a potential existence (union with God).

Want observes a deficient state of existence, that exists through the human condition, as part of a whole which moves towards a unification through potentiality.

Nature dictates if I hunger for food, I must eat.

If I desire companionship, I must have companions.

If I desire security, I must have security.

If I desire God, I must have God.

Food, friends, security...all these desires point towards their potential existence as a natural part of the human condition. The "God Drive" or the desire to "Unify with the Divine as Divine" is inherent within the human condition.

You have to remember, this "psychological drive" is inherent within the state of man an is completely natural as a biproduct of evolution.
Good that you agree there is this "psychological drive."

Then why argue against empirically verified biological drive, through the brain, by empirical means?

This "psychological drive" can also drive humans to the extreme.
For example the hunger drive compels humans to eat but they must eat reasonably but some are driven to gluttony and end with obesity resulting in all sort of diseases and early premature death.
This is why the middle path to avoid staying in the extreme is necessary.

I agree the psychological drive of existentiality that end up with theism is of critical necessity for the majority to deal with an existential crisis since the past till now.
However the reality is the cons of the necessary theism is outweighing its pros as we evolve into the future.
To avoid the terrible evils associated with theism we need to divert the existential psychological drive to non-theistic beliefs and practices that do not have any side effects of evil at all.

I am not saying all theistic beliefs has evil potentials.
What happen is the presence of theism as a whole embolden the cancerous and malignant aspects [e.g. Islam and others] to do damage to humanity.

And atheism does not, as a whole, have the same effects?

The point that there are non-theistic approaches without evil side effects to deal with the inherent existential crisis give hope that theism can be weaned off and be replaced with those benign non-theistic approaches.

What is benign about atheism's continual negation of divinity. If God does not exist, but truth does through man, but man cannot be divine, then the approaches necessitated are merely forms of negation.

A .0001% probability observes that through the course of time all potentialities, including the .0001, are actualities.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:46 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:19 am
You are still stuck with 'what' "it" and the likes.

This 'awareness' is sustained by an active human system.
There is no such 'awareness' if there is no active human system.
That's the answer.
Why do you need to speculate whether there must be a 'what' or "it" underlying it in the ultimate sense?
You are doing it because there is an existential psychological drive that compels you to do it.

Btw, will reality collapse immediately if you stop thinking about a 'what' or 'it' underlying human awareness.
If you do away with a 'what' or 'it' nothing will happen and you will have one less burden, bondage and more freedom.
Yes I know, and that's what I was showing you also in my response.

There is no me without you, there is no you without me.

I was simply pointing to same...using the snake and rope metaphor...then you decided to go off on one big story telling episode again about people having phobias of snakes which was irrelevant to the actual point.

Can we not just cut to the chase and stop with the story telling?
The 'story' is necessary.

Theists are the ones who saw the 'snake' [which in reality was a rope] but they do not the capacity and circumstance to realize the 'snake' is actually a piece of rope. It is difficulty for theist to realize the truth because the illusion happens at the transcendental level.

Note this image, [assuming you have not seen them before] do you see two normal faces?

Image

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:56 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:59 am
Good that you agree there is this "psychological drive."
Then why argue against empirically verified biological drive, through the brain, by empirical means?
Note my point below;
This "psychological drive" can also drive humans to the extreme.
For example the hunger drive compels humans to eat but they must eat reasonably but some are driven to gluttony and end with obesity resulting in all sort of diseases and early premature death.
This is why the middle path to avoid staying in the extreme is necessary.

I agree the psychological drive of existentiality that end up with theism is of critical necessity for the majority to deal with an existential crisis since the past till now.
However the reality is the cons of the necessary theism is outweighing its pros as we evolve into the future.
To avoid the terrible evils associated with theism we need to divert the existential psychological drive to non-theistic beliefs and practices that do not have any side effects of evil at all.

I am not saying all theistic beliefs has evil potentials.
What happen is the presence of theism as a whole embolden the cancerous and malignant aspects [e.g. Islam and others] to do damage to humanity.
And atheism does not, as a whole, have the same effects?
I did not deny this.
Non-theists commit a wide range of evils which must be addressed but they are off topic for this OP.
The point that there are non-theistic approaches without evil side effects to deal with the inherent existential crisis give hope that theism can be weaned off and be replaced with those benign non-theistic approaches.
What is benign about atheism's continual negation of divinity. If God does not exist, but truth does through man, but man cannot be divine, then the approaches necessitated are merely forms of negation.

A .0001% probability observes that through the course of time all potentialities, including the .0001, are actualities.
That .0001% probability where provided is not an actuality of reality but rather an acknowledgement of humility by humans as limited being.
I assert 1 + 1 = 2 but with provision of 0.001% it may not be true absolutely.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:49 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:46 am
The 'story' is necessary.

Theists are the ones who saw the 'snake' [which in reality was a rope]
No, the story is not necessary, the story will only block the seeker from seeing what is actually being pointed to, their focus will be solely on the fictional character, which defy's the subject of what it is trying to point to which is the One without a second without an object.

You need to tell people what you mean by this statement ''Theists are the ones who saw the 'snake' [which in reality was a rope]'' and not just say the concept ''theist'' as being a literal thing in and of itself.

What your statement is really saying is that ..No seer ever saw a snake, the snake is just a known concept of the seer.

'Theists' are fictional characters within the story. No fictional character has ever seen a snake, a snake is a known concept, it's an image of the imagleless ONE...seer and seen being inseparable.

THE SEER is not an illusion, what is seen is the illusion...all seen images are holographic projections..images of the one light.
The seer has to be first for any inference (object) to become known. Objects are the inferrence, not the inferrer.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:46 am
but they do not the capacity and circumstance to realize the 'snake' is actually a piece of rope. It is difficulty for theist to realize the truth because the illusion happens at the transcendental level.
Irrelevent to the disussion because once again you are using the fictional character when you postulate the idea there is ''a theist'' ..your just back in the story again.

And I'm trying to point to the real in which the story is arising.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:46 am
Note this image, [assuming you have not seen them before] do you see two normal faces?
Yes, I see two normal faces...what of it?

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:01 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:49 am
You need to tell people what you mean by this statement ''Theists are the ones who saw the 'snake' [which in reality was a rope]'' and not just say the concept ''theist'' as being a literal thing in and of itself.
My point in the snake and rope analogy;

Theists will insist they saw a real snake [which in reality was a rope] and keep insisting they saw a real snake.
Then they tell the whole village and then the whole world 'that' is a real snake.
After a while there is no way of verifying the truth, so they insist what they claim is the truth, i.e. what they saw was a real snake.

This is the same as theists insisting there is a real God [which in reality is an illusion] and keep insisting there is a real existing God.
Then they tell the whole village and then the whole world there is a real God.
Theists will insists God [like that 'snake' which is illusory] is very real and some will kill those who deny God is real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:46 am
Note this image, [assuming you have not seen them before] do you see two normal faces?
Yes, I see two normal faces...what of it?
OK.
Now, will you tell the people of your village and the whole world what you are seeing, i.e. image of two real normal faces is the truth and nothing else but the truth?
Will you keep insisting those are two normal faces and condemn those who disagree with you?

Here is the BIG SURPRISE!! :shock: :shock: for you.
In fact your self have lied to you to deceive you in seeing two normal faces.
The image of the face on the right is not a 'normal' face but your internal brain had lied to you it is normal.

Now turn your head infront of the screen [or turn your tablet or laptop monitor] and look at the image on the right.

You will see an abnormal face, like this,

Image

There is a natural evolved brain mechanism to cheat you with a lie, i.e. seeing the illusion of a normal face [empirical] when the actual image is that of an abnormal distorted face.

It the same brain mechanism at a more finer level that is cheating you with a lie, i.e. the transcendental illusion of a real God or 'that', or 'it' whatever you claimed is ultimate.

It is easy to demonstrate the above face illusion using the above exercise but to understand how that same brain mechanism tricks theists in believing a real God [when in reality it is illusory] require very deep thinking and reflection.

The compulsion [even trigger some to kill to defend their belief] is so strong I am sure you are not likely to understand my point. Note this is only a discussion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: God is an Impossibility

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:01 am
My point in the snake and rope analogy;

Theists will insist they saw a real snake [which in reality was a rope] and keep insisting they saw a real snake.
Then they tell the whole village and then the whole world 'that' is a real snake.
After a while there is no way of verifying the truth, so they insist what they claim is the truth, i.e. what they saw was a real snake.

This is the same ashallucination insisting there is a real God [which in reality is an illusion] and keep insisting there is a real existing God.
Okay so far, what they the ''theists'' thought was real was an illusion, it wasn't a real snake.

But my point in the snake and rope analogy...is, like the mirror trick. You cannot see what's looking, you can only see what's seen. So the seen is the mirror in which the looker sees itself and thinks the reflection is who they are. But, the looker, lets call it awareness cannot experience itself as the object seen, it cannot experience itself as the reflection, it is the reflection. The reflection is the experience.
Here we see the reflection as being the ''rope'' and the seer of the reflection (rope)..is the seer (the snake)...

The seer is the real, and the reflection of the seer, is the ''illusory other'' which is unreal....here it is realised that both real and unreal exist together as one in the same experience. This analogy is all that can be knowable. So with this dilemma, nothing can be said about impossibilties as an absolute truth, because real and unreal are two sides of the same reality. And there is no way to differentiate between the apparent two, they are one and the same reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:01 am
Theists will insists God [like that 'snake' which is illusory] is very real and some will kill those who deny God is real.
I understand that by using a concept to say whether reality is real or not, is the delusion since we've already established that concepts are not real. But still, with any dicussion about the ineffable reality that is being alive ..concepts are all we've got to describe it, and is why the sage cannot speak without turning the real into the unreal. Silence is real, it's the sound that comes out of silence that is the illusion, and part of that sound is language heard as words..aka the story, it's the conceptual story that is the illusion. Even though the story is inseparable from the reader, in the same context a book is inseparable from the story, they come as one indivisible reality.
So again, there is no way to make a distinction ..to pronounce impossibilties as an absolute truth....there's just no way this is possible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:46 am

OK.
Now, will you tell the people of your village and the whole world what you are seeing, i.e. image of two real normal faces is the truth and nothing else but the truth?
Will you keep insisting those are two normal faces and condemn those who disagree with you?

Here is the BIG SURPRISE!! :shock: :shock: for you.
In fact your self have lied to you to deceive you in seeing two normal faces.
The image of the face on the right is not a 'normal' face but your internal brain had lied to you it is normal.

Now turn your head infront of the screen [or turn your tablet or laptop monitor] and look at the image on the right.

You will see an abnormal face, like this,

There is a natural evolved brain mechanism to cheat you with a lie, i.e. seeing the illusion of a normal face [empirical] when the actual image is that of an abnormal distorted face.

It the same brain mechanism at a more finer level that is cheating you with a lie, i.e. the transcendental illusion of a real God or 'that', or 'it' whatever you claimed is ultimate.

It is easy to demonstrate the above face illusion using the above exercise but to understand how that same brain mechanism tricks theists in believing a real God [when in reality it is illusory] require very deep thinking and reflection.

The compulsion [even trigger some to kill to defend their belief] is so strong I am sure you are not likely to understand my point. Note this is only a discussion.
I get this, but I don't think it is relevant to the discussion ..since we know about the tricky that is the mind. The mind is the grand illusionist.This is more to do with how information is coded and received by the brain. The world we see is one big hallucination anyway, it's a projection of informational waves received by the brain and transmitted into living pictures much the same way a Television set works.

The images of the two faces, is typical of the mirror trick, in that the distortion is simply another appearance within consciousness, it's nothing more than another hallucination within the hallucination that is this living sound and light show called the reality of being alive.
Any distortion is simply a programme written into the matrix by evolution itself as seen and known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

At the end of the day both real and unreal exist as one indivisible reality and cannot be separated or negated.




.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests