Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, what substantial empirical evidence do you have that the Christian God does in fact exist? Along the lines of the substantial empirical evidence that can be accumulated regarding the existence of the Pope. Do people just "have faith" that Popes exist?

Since you, Iambiguous, have a *project* (this is a word from my own lexicon that refers to those things we are trying to achieve; what we advocate for; and sometimes what we are not fully conscious of working to achieve) of disproving Christianity and seeing it as falsely-conceived, it makes sense that you would work in the area of undermining it at a metaphysical level.

You try to draw Immanuel Can into a *question* that he cannot (and will not) answer. I suppose that your provocation of him, and his avoidance of the answer you demand, could go on as a rehearsal and enactment for years & years. Immanuel has been doing what he does here for years & years and, I do not think, his project and the way of going about it does not seem to change. There is more to be said about this of course.

But in the meantime, and simply for general interest, and among people who do not agree at the most basic levels, and will never come to agreement apparently, there is an alternative to endless bickering. It is simply getting clear about what other people believe and why they believe what they do.

So allow me to state, in exact terms, exactly and precisely what Christians believe. That is, what beliefs and understandings are *absolutely core* to the belief-structure. Let us start at the most fundamental point, the most basic assumption and assertion.

The fundamental base of Christian belief is that our world, the world in which we are incarnate, exists between two poles: the world of God and 'angelic being' and Satan and 'demonic being'. Both of these *beings* are categories of spirits that are angelical. That means: non-physical, without material bodies, and yet with intelligence and also (importantly) will, that in terms of intentionality and purpose do not coincide. These purposes oppose one another.

So to ask for *proof* of the existence of God is to ask for something that cannot ever be given -- for the obvious reason that what you demand is a physical and therefore tangible proof. So you are completely right to be unable to entertain and possibly even to be able to think about God and 'angelical being' because, as stated, these are not a part of physical phenomena. And what you ask for is a physical proof.

For this reason if and when God and angelical being is spoken about (by theologians -- 'believers' may speak differently) God is spoken of through secondary references: effects. That is, God is explained and 'proofs' are attempted, through the (supposed) effect on incarnated human beings of these non-material angelical beings.

If such 'being' is denied or if it is seen as being impossible to exist (and no tangible means to do so can be presented) then there really is no further conversation possible. Because what Immanuel asks of you -- and indeed he does ask something of you -- you simply cannot give. If you did you'd have to turn against a whole range of beliefs and assertions that are fundamental to you and that cannot change. If they changed 'cracks' would appear in your 'belief system'. This has happened among people who have been *hardcore non-believers* but only because something shiften inside of them at a personal, subjective level.

Similarly, if IC were to deny what I have asserted here as 'foundational' his entire belief-system would be threatened.

And it must also be said that many people leave the Christian belief-system, or other systems that require faith, because the material argument or the overpowering power of material being (what we see and touch), and their lack of capacity to examine or consider 'secondary effects', becomes so weak that the logical and necessary alternative becomes agnosticism or atheism.

[Immanuel Can]

Before we do, there's something you need to settle.

You claim to know "I have no evidence." Please justify that claim: how do you know what I know?

Again, it's not what you claim to know about the You accuse me of being evasive...

If the shoe fits...

Please answer the question honestly: you said "...you have no substantial empirical evidence able to demonstrate that the Christian God exist." I want to know how you claim to be able to say that.

But I see you're reluctant to. But we know: the answer is "None." You know it, and I know it.

So there: we needn't worry about that anymore.

The irony is that you are using a claim without evidence to accuse me of operating without evidence. And we both know it.

The problem is that I DO have evidence to offer, and shortly will; but you will never have any.

2] that your God is but one of many, many other Gods claimed to be the one true path to immortality and salvation

True, but unimportant. Many beliefs may be wrong.

Unimportant to those who worship and adore a God other than yours? Unimportant to those who insist that it is your beliefs that are wrong?

Really, how can a truly intelligent man or woman note this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

...and not admit that they have no "substantial empirical evidence" for the existence of their God. They have only what all the others have: a more or less blind leap of faith. An existential leap of faith. A more or less astutely calculated wager.

And the list above is just the major religions.

There are many, many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

And then once again you "snip" a line from what I post and just ignore all the rest.

You're having trouble grasping the concept.

Let me try again: it doesn't matter how many people there are who believe different things. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to "What is 2+2. It does not imply there is no answer.

So even infinite alternatives do not imply anything.

Get it yet?

With all that is at stake if you choose the wrong path?

That's a different question, and a serious one.

What remains irrelevant is how many wrong answers are "out there." It just doesn't matter. Ever.

It's entirely beside the point how many people believe a thing. At one time, 100% of the people on earth thought it was flat. They were 100% wrong.

Right, like being able to establish objectively the shape of the Earth is the equivalent of being able to establish whether the Christian God does or does not exist.

It is the same. Either a thing is so, or it is not. There is no middle ground to the word "exist."

3] that your belief in the Christian God is rooted in part in the particular life that you lived...from your indoctrination as a child [if that is the case] to the accumulation of personal experiences you had as an adult

That is not the case...

Of course it is the case!

Again, it is not even possible for you to know that, even if it were to turn out to be true. You don't know me, or my history. It's nonsense.

Moreover, once again, you have no evidence for that claim. And we both know you don't.

...but if it were, it would still be irrelevant. The truth or falsehood of a belief does not depend on how it was acquired. That's the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy does not refer to genes, but to the "genesis" of how a belief came about.

And, no doubt about it, what you believe about God and religion has absolutely nothing to do with the historical era into which you are born, the culture and community in which you were raised, the family that indoctrinated you, the uniquely personal experiences you had.

It's worse for your case than that.

The truth is, it wouldn't matter if it did.

It's the memes.

That's Dawkins dumb idea. You don't actually believe in it, do you?

Instead, none of this is applicable to you at all. Your belief in the Christian God "transcends" all that.

What Dawkins can't explain is the phenomenon known as "conversion." People can change their minds, and routinely do. Somebody born in an Islamic land can end up being a Hindu, or a Catholic can become a Buddhist. It happens all the time. But Dawkins' theory can't explain how that's possible. It requires Determinism-by-environment.

I understand why he thinks it, because he's a naive Materialist. Are you?

what is the "genesis" of your belief...

In my case, I chose it in my second year of university. And ironically, it was as a result of reading a lot of famous skeptics and Atheists. It was the poverty of their own thinking that set me on a course to go searching for God.

quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=567358 time=1649392215 user_id=9431] That's not the question. The question is whether or not He is the ONLY actual will in the universe.

How the hell would I know?

You would know, because you have a will. Don't you think you do?

That means that, at minimum, there would be two actual wills in the universe; yours and God's. And you also believe in my will, because you're arguing with me, trying to make an impression on my thinking. That means you must believe I have a will, too. So you DO know -- if you admit to yourself what you ought to know, rationally.

Do you or do you not believe the Christian God is the transcending font in understanding Creation itself?

What do you mean by your metaphor, "transcending font"? I've never seen those two words used together before.

What on Earth does the Christian God being "the will behind all the natural disasters, medical afflictions, viral pandemics and extinction events that have devastated -- or will devastate -- the lives of millions upon millions of men, women and children over the centuries" have to do with that.

Ask yourself this: what is the alternative?

I have. Often.

No. I mean, go ahead and describe it to yourself in detail.

Try to conceive how a universe would run, in which free will is real, but the environment is strictly governed so that no bad things ever happen. Picture it, if you can. Just see if it's a coherent idea.

Then we can talk about the picture you create.

We can walk through it, if you want. But I'm pretty sure you're not interested anyway.

Let's start with the covid-19 virus. Walk us through your own understanding of THE relationship between God, its existence, and the devastating pain and suffering it has caused for millions around the globe. Please note for us the strongest evidence for backing up what you claim here.

All that's necessary is that we know that the Wu Flu came out of a lab in Wuhan. Whether the Americans were involved or not is incidental, even if true. In either case, COVID is still only a man-made virus, one that would not have existed at all without unethical genetic engineering by humans.

I'm trying to help you make the right case here. If you give me something that is man-made, the answer becomes to easy for me. I simply say, "Man did it." I'm trying to show you what the right test case is...not Wu Flu, but something maybe like earthquakes.

Also, what about the AIDS virus

It's a behaviourally-transmitted disease. If you and your partner behave in a sexually-responsible way, you have 0% chance of contracting it. So again, that case is too easy for me.

and the Bubonic plague

That's a mixed case: it was caused by overcrowding, and spread by things like horrendous sanitation practices and house fires. So it's better for your question, but not as good as something like earthquakes. It's still partly human-caused.

Humans are to blame?

In those cases, at least partly. Certainly for COVID and AIDS, 100%. But Black Plague is half and half.

But there are two types of things we call "evils." Things like the Wu-Flu, we call "human evils." But you mention other things, things we might call "environmental evils," or "natural evils," like earthquakes or famines, say. Now, some of these, no doubt are caused by humans misbehaviour, too. Famines are often a result of corrupt government practices with food supplies, for example; but I think you'd have a more interesting case with something like earthquakes, where no human hand is apparently involved.

Want to try that one?

Yeah, let's start there: https://ourworldindata.org/the-worlds-d ... arthquakes

You don't have to worry: you're working too hard.

I will stipulate for purposes of our discussion that earthquakes happen, and that they aren't man-caused. Or, if you prefer volcanoes, that's fine too.

P.S. -- I haven't forgotten I have promised you evidence. I would like to start providing some.

However, there's a problem: I've had this discussion with Atheists before; and they always do this:

IC presents evidence X. Atheist replies that X isn't evidence. IC provides more evidence. Atheist replies that it's not enough evidence. IC provides logical argument Y. Atheist replies that it doesn't count, for some reason. IC provides reasons. Atheist denies that the reasons are reasons. And so on.

So let's not waste our time that way. Instead, I'll ask you up front: if I were to give you evidence you would accept for the existence of God, what would that look like to you?

If I have such evidence, I will happily provide it in response.

[Immanuel Can]

If such 'being' is denied or if it is seen as being impossible to exist (and no tangible means to do so can be presented) then there really is no further conversation possible. Because what Immanuel asks of you -- and indeed he does ask something of you -- you simply cannot give. If you did you'd have to turn against a whole range of beliefs and assertions that are fundamental to you and that cannot change. If they changed 'cracks' would appear in your 'belief system'. This has happened among people who have been *hardcore non-believers* but only because something shiften inside of them at a personal, subjective level.

You've got the Dawkins problem with this view, Alexis. Namely, "If it's so impossible to change something fundamental in one's beliefs, why is it that the phenomenon called "conversion" is so common?"

Judging by the above, it should be impossible. You say that iam and others have "a whole range of beliefs and assertions that are fundamental to you and that cannot change." But apparently, they DO change, and not unusually, too.

Similarly, if IC were to deny what I have asserted here as 'foundational' his entire belief-system would be threatened.

I'm not so easy to "threaten," Alexis.

Actually, I would argue that one's foundational beliefs have to be revisited regularly, if only to check for problems. And if changing something foundational does, indeed, cause tremours in the edifice of belief resting on them, then that's all to the good.

My own journey has been one of continual texting and re-examination, even of the basics.

However, something else happens when you do that: you not only discover the things that can be shaken, but also the things that cannot. What happens when one tests a basic belief with a vigorous challenge and the belief crumbles is that you've learned that you were wrong.

But what happens when you have a belief, test it repeatedly, and find it always stands? Then you've got a different rational conclusion to come to. It's that your basic belief was not weaker than it should have been, but that rather, it was far stronger than you even knew.

What does a wise man do, in such a situation? Does he persist forever in skepticism? If he does, then he will never learn anything at all; for none of his beliefs will ever amount to actionable knowledge for him. At some point, a rational person needs to be able to admit to himself, "Well, it seems that this belief of mine is pretty strong, and it would be worth investing some action in following through on it."

Of course, he still has to realize that some extreme condition might be possible when that well-founded basic belief would be shown wrong, even if he's never encountered such a condition; but if he has tested, and tested, and tested, and not found any way to make such a thing happen, then he's quite rational to proceed on the basis of that. For what kind of belief is more worthy of our trust than one we have tested, and tested, and tested? Those, it would seem to me, are the very BEST sorts of beliefs to trust; and if you can't trust them, then surely there is nothing at all you can trust, and you're effectively paralyzed indefinitely, incapable of any action because there's nothing upon which you think you can even frame a premise.

...the logical and necessary alternative becomes agnosticism or atheism.

Well, there is no "logical" Atheism. Atheism can only ever BE a "faith" position...or rather, a refusal-by-faith position. Nobody has conclusive evidence of there being no God. So denying God's existence amounts only to saying, "I (the Atheist) don't know God." Which is fairly obvious, isn't it? But it surely doesn't prove God doesn't exist, or that other people don't even know Him. It just means the poor bugger who's an Atheist has no personal experience of God...which is hardly a surprise, is it?

Agnosticism is more rational, but is still only really a personal confession of confusion on the issue. The fact that somebody "doesn't know" ("a-gnosis") does not compel anybody else not to know, and doesn't even prove that the person who confesses it will not-know shortly. It just means, "Right now, I'm confused (but you may not be, and I may cease to be)."

So we're back to this: good beliefs are those that have stood tests. So far from anything testing the foundations of my belief being a threat, I want to see any such tests. But Atheists be warned: I've spent time on this. I'm not going to be fooled the first time you pull out the Euthyprho Problem or ask how big a rock God can make. These are rudimentary tests, impressive only to the simple, and satisfying only if one is already pointed at finding facile excuses to disbelieve. They're easily debunked. So I'm looking for better tests, ones I have not seen already.

But bring 'em on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That means that, at minimum, there would be two actual wills in the universe; yours and God's.

To be strictly accurate Christian-belief wise: three wills. God’s, our own, and the will of Satan and the fallen angels.

[iambiguous]

Before we do, there's something you need to settle.

You claim to know "I have no evidence." Please justify that claim: how do you know what I know?

Again, it's not what you claim to know about the Christian God, it's what you can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to know in turn. If they want to be thought of as rational men and women.

After all, how hard would it be to demonstrate that there is a Pope in the Vatican to someone who believes we live in a No Pope world?

You accuse me of being evasive...

If the shoe fits...

So, if I evade answering you that's relevant here. But if you evade answering me...that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Okay, thanks for straightening that out for me.

Please answer the question honestly: you said "...you have no substantial empirical evidence able to demonstrate that the Christian God exist." I want to know how you claim to be able to say that.

But I see you're reluctant to. But we know: the answer is "None." You know it, and I know it.

So there: we needn't worry about that anymore.

The irony is that you are using a claim without evidence to accuse me of operating without evidence. And we both know it.

The problem is that I DO have evidence to offer, and shortly will; but you will never have any.

Note to others:

What am I missing here? Has he provided substantial empirical evidence to demonstrate the Christian God does in fact exist...in the same manner in which substantial empirical evidence can be provided to demonstrate that Catholic Popes do in fact exist?

Or "shortly" will it be forthcoming.

You're having trouble grasping the concept.

No the part I always come back to here is how you don't/won't take your intellectual/spiritual contraption "concepts" down out of the clouds and intertwine them existentially in the lives that we actually live.

Let me try again: it doesn't matter how many people there are who believe different things. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to "What is 2+2. It does not imply there is no answer.

So even infinite alternatives do not imply anything.

Get it yet?

Nope, because then I come back to this:

With objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side at stake here, it's irrelevant to question what someone believes about God given that there are many, many others out there insisting that it's not your God's path but theirs that will save us? As long as all these people believe in all of these conflicting Gods [and No God spiritual paths] all that matters is that they believe what they do?!!

So, now the profoundly problematic and ofttimes conflicting beliefs in a God, the God, my God -- with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave -- is likened to 2 + 2 = ? Like some say 3 and some say 1 and some say 5 and some say 11 and some say 4. But there is only one correct answer. Just as there is onle correct answer in regard to God. Yours.

And I'm not arguing that there is no answer to the question "Does the Christian God exist?", only that any answer that someone gives me I take back to the four factors we are discussing here.

With all that is at stake if you choose the wrong path?

That's a different question, and a serious one.

What remains irrelevant is how many wrong answers are "out there." It just doesn't matter. Ever.

Right, as long as it is you who gets to decree that only the path you are on is the right one. And even though those on all the other paths are decreeing the same for their own God/No God spiritual path their own Scriptures are all irrelevant because in not being sync with your path they are all necessarily wrong.

So, go ahead and ask them about the Christian God path. See if they "get" that the only true path is the one that you are on.

It's entirely beside the point how many people believe a thing. At one time, 100% of the people on earth thought it was flat. They were 100% wrong.

Right, like being able to establish objectively the shape of the Earth is the equivalent of being able to establish whether the Christian God does or does not exist. And with God...unlike squabbles over the shape of the earth...you get things like Inquisitions and crusades and jihads and theocracies and rigid orthodox communities where practically everything that everyone does will land them either in Heaven or Hell.

It is the same. Either a thing is so, or it is not. There is no middle ground to the word "exist."

It's not the same!! Not if arguing over the shape of the Earth doesn't result in "Inquisitions and crusades and jihads and theocracies and rigid orthodox communities where practically everything that everyone does will land them either in Heaven or Hell."

And the rock solid ground that you use in regard to the existence of the Christian God is this: that "in your head" you believe that He does.

At least until "shortly" you will begin to provided us with that substantial empirical evidence.

3] that your belief in the Christian God is rooted in part in the particular life that you lived...from your indoctrination as a child [if that is the case] to the accumulation of personal experiences you had as an adult

That is not the case...

Of course it is the case! Around the globe in community after community children are being brainwashed to believe in one or another God. Or in No God. And each of them as individuals has a unique trajectory of personal experiences that brings them closer to one point of view rather than another. That's just common sense.

Again, it is not even possible for you to know that, even if it were to turn out to be true. You don't know me, or my history. It's nonsense.

Moreover, once again, you have no evidence for that claim. And we both know you don't.

Are you actually able to think yourself into believing that this...

"Around the globe in community after community children are being brainwashed to believe in one or another God. Or in No God. And each of them as individuals has a unique trajectory of personal experiences that brings them closer to one point of view rather than another."

...is not applicable to all of us? That it's not applicable to you? That it's actually nonsense?!!

Note to others:

Seriously, how can I be expected to sustain a discussion with someone who believes something so patently ridiculous? Does anyone else here believe it is not applicable to them?

As for the evidence just think back on your own life. Connect the clearly existential dots between your indoctrination as a child and all of the uniquely personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that came to embody your "lived life".

...but if it were, it would still be irrelevant. The truth or falsehood of a belief does not depend on how it was acquired. That's the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy does not refer to genes, but to the "genesis" of how a belief came about.

And, no doubt about it, what you believe about God and religion has absolutely nothing to do with the historical era into which you are born, the culture and community in which you were raised, the family that indoctrinated you, the uniquely personal experiences you had.

It's worse for your case than that.

The truth is, it wouldn't matter if it did.

Okay, given your own life and your own belief in the Christian God note in some detail how my points above didn't matter in shaping and molding your own spiritual/religious path.

It's the memes. The historical memes. The cultural memes. The social, political and economic memes. The memes you encountered in the course of being indoctrinated as a child. The memes you encountered in the course of accumulating uniquely personal experiences that predisposed you to Christianity rather than to another denomination. Or to No God.

That's Dawkins dumb idea. You don't actually believe in it, do you?

Again, explain to us how memes -- "elements of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation" -- are not relevant to your belief in the Christian God.

Instead, none of this is applicable to you at all. Your belief in the Christian God "transcends" all that. Do you actually believe this? If so, what is the "genesis" of your belief...the reality here that you define and deduce into existence? Or have faith in?

What Dawkins can't explain is the phenomenon known as "conversion." People can change their minds, and routinely do. Somebody born in an Islamic land can end up being a Hindu, or a Catholic can become a Buddhist. It happens all the time. But Dawkins' theory can't explain how that's possible. It requires Determinism-by-environment.

No, given the existence of free will, it just requires that you have a new experience, sustain a new friendship, come upon new information and knowledge etc., that prompts you existentially to think about something like religion in a different way. It's only "Determinism-by-environment" if the environment itself [including the human brain] is ever and always wholly -- only -- in sync with nature's laws of matter. Then memes would be entirely interchangeable with genes.

what is the "genesis" of your belief...

In my case, I chose it in my second year of university. And ironically, it was as a result of reading a lot of famous skeptics and Atheists. It was the poverty of their own thinking that set me on a course to go searching for God.

Well, you either believe that all of the factors in your life prior to this experience inevitably led up to this fated or destined choice, or you recognize that had your life been different for any number of hundreds and hundreds of reasons you may have never ended up in the university at all. And, again, the "poverty" of the skeptics/atheists point of view revolves in my view precisely around the prejudices you acquired existentially about the world around you...given that particular confluence of uniquely person experiences that predisposed you to the Christian God and not some other one. Or, like me, to No God.

Then this again...

quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=567358 time=1649392215 user_id=9431] That's not the question. The question is whether or not He is the ONLY actual will in the universe.

How the hell would I know? Are you or are you not a Christian? Do you or do you not believe the Christian God is the transcending font in understanding Creation itself? Here the "human condition" on planet Earth being just a tiny speck in the context of "all there is" in what may well be a "multiverse" of infinite universes .How the hell would I know?

You would know, because you have a will. Don't you think you do?

That means that, at minimum, there would be two actual wills in the universe; yours and God's. And you also believe in my will, because you're arguing with me, trying to make an impression on my thinking. That means you must believe I have a will, too. So you DO know -- if you admit to yourself what you ought to know, rationally.

And around and around and around we go again about this.

You presuming that we have free will compatible with and omniscient God, me presuming that I am typing these words and you are reading them in the only possible reality in the only possible world...given that the human brain itself is matter no less entirely in sync with nature's immutable laws.

Do you or do you not believe the Christian God is the transcending font in understanding Creation itself?

What do you mean by your metaphor, "transcending font"? I've never seen those two words used together before.

John believes that abortion is immoral because, as a Christian, his family and community taught him to think this is true. God is his "transcending font" in that it is the moral foundation he uses to react to abortion as a moral issue. A foundation that transcends all of the conflciting personal opinions of mere mortals.

A foundation that one day culminates in Judgment Day. There he will be judged by God as worthy of ascending up to Heaven or descending down to Hell.

Religion is a nutshell?

What on Earth does the Christian God being "the will behind all the natural disasters, medical afflictions, viral pandemics and extinction events that have devastated -- or will devastate -- the lives of millions upon millions of men, women and children over the centuries" have to do with that.

Ask yourself this: what is the alternative?

I have. Often. If there is no God with His "mysterious ways" able to finally explain to us in Heaven why He brought into existence all those things, I have to conclude that they "just happen" in an essentially meaningless universe. No God, no teleology. Just the "brute facticity" embedded in all of the terrible consequences of them "just happening".

No. I mean, go ahead and describe it to yourself in detail.

Try to conceive how a universe would run, in which free will is real, but the environment is strictly governed so that no bad things ever happen. Picture it, if you can. Just see if it's a coherent idea.

You're asking me, an infinitesimally tiny and insgnificant speak of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is" -- https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science -- to "conceive" of something like that?!!

Why on Earth do you suppose it is necessary for those of your ilk to invent a God, the God, my God so as to have the answer? Those of my ilk no longer have that comforting and consoling secureity balnket to nestle in.

Not that I wouldn't give almost anything to find it again.

We can walk through it, if you want. But I'm pretty sure you're not interested anyway.

Let's start with the covid-19 virus. Walk us through your own understanding of THE relationship between God, its existence, and the devastating pain and suffering it has caused for millions around the globe. Please note for us the strongest evidence for backing up what you claim here.

All that's necessary is that we know that the Wu Flu came out of a lab in Wuhan. Whether the Americans were involved or not is incidental, even if true. In either case, COVID is still only a man-made virus, one that would not have existed at all without unethical genetic engineering by humans.

Again, go here...

https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+v ... nt=gws-wiz

...and note the strongest evidence available to confirm this.

Also, what about the AIDS virus

quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=567358 time=1649392215 user_id=9431] It's a behaviourally-transmitted disease. If you and your partner behave in a sexually-responsible way, you have 0% chance of contracting it. So again, that case is too easy for me.

Did or did not this loving, just and merciful Christian God of yours create this virus? And what of those who got the disease through blood transfusions or, as a baby, was born with it?

and the Bubonic plague

That's a mixed case: it was caused by overcrowding, and spread by things like horrendous sanitation practices and house fires. So it's better for your question, but not as good as something like earthquakes. It's still partly human-caused.

It simply doesn't surprise me anymore how minds like yours are able to rationalize things like this. Since your comfort and consolation is derived from your belief in the Christian God, you have no choice but to explain God away from it.

On the other hand, I know I am dealing with a truly fanatic religious objectivist when they won't even go there...won't even admit to themselves that, yeah, maybe my beliefs are predicated on what I want to believe is true in order to be comforted and consoled all the way to the grave.

Does that describe you?

But there are two types of things we call "evils." Things like the Wu-Flu, we call "human evils." But you mention other things, things we might call "environmental evils," or "natural evils," like earthquakes or famines, say. Now, some of these, no doubt are caused by humans misbehaviour, too. Famines are often a result of corrupt government practices with food supplies, for example; but I think you'd have a more interesting case with something like earthquakes, where no human hand is apparently involved.

Want to try that one?

Yeah, let's start there: https://ourworldindata.org/the-worlds-d ... arthquakes

Then we can move on to this: https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-is ... ty-2018-10

"Yellowstone erupts roughly every 600,000 years, and it's about 600,000 years since it last exploded.
An eruption at Yellowstone National Park could lead to the end of human civilisation."

The Christian God and Yellowstone.

You don't have to worry: you're working too hard.

I will stipulate for purposes of our discussion that earthquakes happen, and that they aren't man-caused. Or, if you prefer volcanoes, that's fine too.

Yeah, but the point was you connecting the dots between these "acts of God", you, the Christian God and the terrible pain and suffering that result when they occur.

P.S. -- I haven't forgotten I have promised you evidence. I would like to start providing some.

However, there's a problem: I've had this discussion with Atheists before; and they always do this:

IC presents evidence X. Atheist replies that X isn't evidence. IC provides more evidence. Atheist replies that it's not enough evidence.

Try presenting your evidence to this atheist. Me. Let's see where that goes.

IC provides logical argument Y. Atheist replies that it doesn't count, for some reason. IC provides reasons. Atheist denies that the reasons are reasons. And so on.

Now, with those like you, this part is far, far more common. Logical arguments almost always being a "world of words" in which a God, the God, my God is defined and/or deduced into existence.

So let's not waste our time that way. Instead, I'll ask you up front: if I were to give you evidence you would accept for the existence of God, what would that look like to you?

Well, it would look a lot like the evidence someone would provide to demonstrate to those who live in a No Pope world, that, in fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- Pope Francis -- does in fact exist.

[Nick_A]

The sad part of the existence of God being discussed here is that there is no Hebrew or Christian personal God. These concepts devolved from secular influences.

The Christian GOD is the ONE described by Plotinus. The Jewish God is Ein Sof as described in the Kabbalah. Both are an ineffable source beyond the comprehension of our senses. The effects of Plato's cave are responsible for their devolution into societal ideas.

Does pure consciousness or consciousness without content exist? Can we prove it. Yet we somehow know it exists beyond our sensory limitations. Can we experience our connection to the ONE or Ein Sof by computers? No, a person has to become capable of conscious contemplation; a vanishing ability since how many even know what it is anymore.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you actually able to think yourself into believing that this...

"Around the globe in community after community children are being brainwashed to believe in one or another God. Or in No God. And each of them as individuals has a unique trajectory of personal experiences that brings them closer to one point of view rather than another."

...is not applicable to all of us? That it's not applicable to you? That it's actually nonsense?!!

A couple of things can be said here.

One is, and this is fair to say and true, that because 'God' is absolutely immaterial, and as Nick just said "an ineffable source beyond the comprehension of our senses" (which is a primary assertion of both Christian and Jewish theology), there is no way to introduce a child to this truth or this reality. It is not an easy concept to get hold of. In fact it is, largely, a mystical idea. You could tell a child that but it is unlikely that the child could understand.

So children are usually taught through symbols or emblems. Gereral *pictures* that they can assimilate and are comprehensible to them.

So when one thinks about paideia (I always put emphasis on this because what we teach children becomes the very foundation of how we live and what sort of civilization we have) one has to be realistic. Think back to the former times when education was more or less classical. A child received a liberal arts education which included some level of encounter with the Classics. And also mathematics, geometry, grammar, and then also religious studies. The depth or profundity of this education could only have been introductory and general. It is rather impossible to ask that children grasp what are complex and difficult topics. But you have to start somewhere and with something. You have to make decisions -- and the decions made are consequential ones.

But this term 'brainwash' stands out and requires commentary. Who defines what is brainwashing and what is not?

But let's talk realistically and fairly. If in a rigorous school on, say, the Indian subcontinent a well-born Hindu child would be introduced to religious notions only in a superficial and general way. The religious conversation would have most to do with social norms, established ethics, cultural patterns, and the purpose of these are to inform an upstanding citizen, not an accomplished mystic or theologian who would, likely, have a very involved manner of explaining God (take as an example Vivekananda or Sri Aurobindo).

It is true that of the millions who are educated according to the basic tenets of their culture that many of them will go no further than simply participating, in whatever capacity, in the general culture. And it is also true that some will go on to progress much farther. How could it be otherwise?

All cultures have general theological notions which are taught to children. But this is not *brainwashing*. Brainwashing is a specific thing and is a set of techniques, highly coercive and violent, the purpose of which is to break down and break apart a given 'belief-system', or undermine the victim's personality and bring about a collapse and as a result to be re-programable into another ideology.

At higher cultural points, and in environments where involved and detailed thought is possible and encouraged, and usually among the élites, it is possible to examine carefully and think through different belief-systems and those traditions of understanding that are foundational to cultures. To compare one with another. To examine them in detail. One reason we can have the *philosophical* conversation we have here is because all of us have been introduced to these ways of thinking through our university backgrounds.

But I am quite uncertain, Iambiguous, what really and what ultimately you are up to. What do you wish to achieve?

[Dubious]

I see evangelist "Christians" as sycophants.

The modus operandi of Christian Evangelists has nothing to do with them personally believing what they proclaim, their business is to convince YOU that it’s all true. Like the short guy who keeps flogging A&W hamburgers on TV, how do we know he isn’t going elsewhere to buy hamburgers?

Evangelism is an ideal way to make the afterlife profitable NOW. If it doesn’t pan out, no one is going to ask for their money back. It’s a fantastically brilliant racket to be in considering how many idiots are out there ready to be milked.

BTW, anyone know if Peter Popoff is still selling holy water

[iambiguous]

Again, what substantial empirical evidence do you have that the Christian God does in fact exist? Along the lines of the substantial empirical evidence that can be accumulated regarding the existence of the Pope. Do people just "have faith" that Popes exist?

Since you, Iambiguous, have a *project* (this is a word from my own lexicon that refers to those things we are trying to achieve; what we advocate for; and sometimes what we are not fully conscious of working to achieve) of disproving Christianity and seeing it as falsely-conceived, it makes sense that you would work in the area of undermining it at a metaphysical level.

In regard to Christianity, my "project" revolves around this thread: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

To wit: Connecting the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other.

Metaphysics is the least of my concerns. Besides, let's be blunt: what can any of us really know about the nature of existence teleologically?

We don't even know if there is a teleological component.

Unless of course you take a leap of faith to a God, the God, my God and merely presume that's the point of departure.

You try to draw Immanuel Can into a *question* that he cannot (and will not) answer. I suppose that your provocation of him, and his avoidance of the answer you demand, could go on as a rehearsal and enactment for years & years. Immanuel has been doing what he does here for years & years and, I do not think, his project and the way of going about it does not seem to change. There is more to be said about this of course.

What I attempt to expose are the objectivists among us. Moral, political and/or spiritual. Those who argue it is their God, their ideology, their deontological assessment, their understanding of nature, that reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of the human condition. And then the inherent danger embedded in communities where they come into power and get to decide which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished. And are in turn able to enforce their moral, political and/or religious agenda.

But in the meantime, and simply for general interest, and among people who do not agree at the most basic levels, and will never come to agreement apparently, there is an alternative to endless bickering. It is simply getting clear about what other people believe and why they believe what they do.

That's what I do in regard to dasein. Only this clarity only goes so far. Why? Because of the sheer complexity of all the variables involved from the cradle to the grave. And in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. Why else would things like God and ideology and philosophical schools be invented if not to anchor I in something -- anything -- that ties it all together.

So allow me to state, in exact terms, exactly and precisely what Christians believe. That is, what beliefs and understandings are *absolutely core* to the belief-structure. Let us start at the most fundamental point, the most basic assumption and assertion.

Again, I'm considerably less interested in what Christians or Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Shintos etc., believe and more interested in how they take those beliefs here...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

So, by all means, take this...

The fundamental base of Christian belief is that our world, the world in which we are incarnate, exists between two poles: the world of God and 'angelic being' and Satan and 'demonic being'. Both of these *beings* are categories of spirits that are angelical. That means: non-physical, without material bodies, and yet with intelligence and also (importantly) will, that in terms of intentionality and purpose do not coincide. These purposes oppose one another.

....there.

So to ask for *proof* of the existence of God is to ask for something that cannot ever be given -- for the obvious reason that what you demand is a physical and therefore tangible proof. So you are completely right to be unable to entertain and possibly even to be able to think about God and 'angelical being' because, as stated, these are not a part of physical phenomena. And what you ask for is a physical proof.

Then we're stuck.

But there's still focusing in on this part...

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

...with respect to why some choose Christianity while others choose another God altogether. Or choose a No God spiritual path like Buddhism.

As for these "spiritual contraptions"...

For this reason if and when God and angelical being is spoken about (by theologians -- 'believers' may speak differently) God is spoken of through secondary references: effects. That is, God is explained and 'proofs' are attempted, through the (supposed) effect on incarnated human beings of these non-material angelical beings.

If such 'being' is denied or if it is seen as being impossible to exist (and no tangible means to do so can be presented) then there really is no further conversation possible. Because what Immanuel asks of you -- and indeed he does ask something of you -- you simply cannot give. If you did you'd have to turn against a whole range of beliefs and assertions that are fundamental to you and that cannot change. If they changed 'cracks' would appear in your 'belief system'. This has happened among people who have been *hardcore non-believers* but only because something shiften inside of them at a personal, subjective level.

...how are they applicable given particular "human all too human" contexts?

[Immanuel Can]

That means that, at minimum, there would be two actual wills in the universe; yours and God's.

To be strictly accurate Christian-belief wise...

I'm only talking about what everybody knows...even the most secular person, and iam in particular.

He knows he has a will. He his actions show he believes I do. And, since he is talking about the Supreme Being as if He exists, he is taking for granted that God would also have a will. But even if the third is only a hypothetical and, as I think, he doesn't believe it's true at all, there is still no logic to the claim that there is only one will in the universe. There is then no less than two, and by extension, many others as well...for I note that he talks to you as if you have a will, and I assume you agree he's right about that.

[Immanuel Can]

So, if I evade answering you that's relevant here.

Yes: because you made the claim. And you take me to task for having a view which (you wrongly assume) has no evidence. But you do so on no evidence at all.

But if you evade answering me.

I do not. I have already promised, three times now, to respond to your question.

But you spoke first. And you owe an answer first, though you will not give it.

What am I missing here?

Well, there's nothing you should be missing. If you read what I say, I want an answer from you, then I will answer your question. Seems perfectly simple.

But as I noted, we both know the answer to the question I asked you. You had no evidence. And if that's true, then your accusation of me comes off as rather hypocritical, does it not?

Let me try again: it doesn't matter how many people there are who believe different things. There are an infinite number of wrong answers to "What is 2+2. It does not imply there is no answer.

So even infinite alternatives do not imply anything.

Get it yet?

Nope, because then I come back to this: With objective morality on this side of the grave [/quote]
There's your second claim without evidence.

and immortality and salvation on the other side at stake here, it's irrelevant to question what someone believes about God

If "immortality and salvation" are at stake, then the question of what you believe about God is not irrelevant. But the wrong beliefs of other people, no matter how numerous or elaborate they may become, do not make the truth stop being the truth.

given that there are many, many others out there insisting that it's not your God's path but theirs that will save us?

That's absolutely true, and perfectly rational. For there is nothing at all about the proliferation of beliefs that turns any of them into truth, or would ever make the truth not the truth.

all that matters is that they believe what they do?!!

Jesus Christ says otherwise. He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and then, in case anybody misses the point: "no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

So if there are many roads, they are not going to the same place "the way" is taking people. Take your pick, and live (and die) with the consequences.

So, now the profoundly problematic and ofttimes conflicting beliefs in a God, the God, my God -- with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave -- is likened to 2 + 2 = ? Like some say 3 and some say 1 and some say 5 and some say 11 and some say 4. But there is only one correct answer. Just as there is onle correct answer in regard to God...

That's right.

Either the God I am telling you about exists, or He does not. There is no other possiblity: it's one or the other. Logic tells you that. And if, as I believe, He does exist, then following any other so-called "god" is futile, and leads to death -- just following no god (or oneself) will.

With all that is at stake if you choose the wrong path?

That's a different question, and a serious one.

What remains irrelevant is how many wrong answers are "out there." It just doesn't matter. Ever.

Right, as long as it is you who gets to decree that only the path you are on is the right one. [/quote]
Don't be naive: everybody does that. The most inclusive person still believes that being inclusive is better than being exclusive. And the inclusive views of religion all reject the exclusive ones as being too narrow or wrong, just because they're exclusive.

So that means everybody is exclusive about God. And you won't find anybody more dogmatic about it, or more exclusive, on less evidence, than the Atheists.

And even though those on all the other paths are decreeing the same for their own God/No God spiritual path their own Scriptures are all irrelevant because in not being sync with your path they are all necessarily wrong.

They aren't wrong because they are not in sync with me; they're wrong because God says they're wrong. It's Him they're out of sync with.

So, go ahead and ask them about the Christian God path. See if they "get" that the only true path is the one that you are on.

I do, all the time. What do you think I'm doing right now?

It's not the same!! Not if arguing over the shape of the Earth doesn't result in "Inquisitions and crusades and jihads and theocracies and rigid orthodox communities where practically everything that everyone does will land them either in Heaven or Hell.

"
Inquisitions = Catholic. Crusades = big, long ones Muslim, short ones Catholic. Jihads = Muslim. Theocracies = never been one. Rigid Orthodox Communities = maybe you're picking on Jews? Or maybe Mennonites, now?

I am none of these. Let them answer as they choose: I do not speak for them. And in the end, for whatever they have done, they, like us all, will answer to their Judge.

3] that your belief in the Christian God is rooted in part in the particular life that you lived...from your indoctrination as a child [if that is the case] to the accumulation of personal experiences you had as an adult

That is not the case...

Of course it is the case!

I've lost count: is that your third or fourth claim for which you have zero evidence?

Okay, given your own life and your own belief in the Christian God note in some detail how my points above didn't matter in shaping and molding your own spiritual/religious path.

Why? You seem to think you know me already, and can analyze my "spiritual path" on no evidence at all. Are you now saying you were bluffing, and you won't actually know, unless I tell you?

What Dawkins can't explain is the phenomenon known as "conversion." People can change their minds, and routinely do. Somebody born in an Islamic land can end up being a Hindu, or a Catholic can become a Buddhist. It happens all the time. But Dawkins' theory can't explain how that's possible. It requires Determinism-by-environment.

No, given the existence of free will, it just requires that you have a new experience, sustain a new friendship, come upon new information and knowledge etc.,[/quote]
If that's true, then you are now denying that culture Predetermines one's belief system. The "memes" as Dawkins calls them, do not actually explain how people choose their beliefs, ultimately.

Well, you either believe that all of the factors in your life prior to this experience inevitably led up to this fated or destined choice, or you recognize that had your life been different for any number of hundreds and hundreds of reasons you may have never ended up in the university at all.

False dichotomy. Those are not the only possible interpretations, and neither is the right one, actually. I was not "fated" to go; I chose to. And we never know what would have been in counterfactual situations. We know only what did happen.

How the hell would I know?

You would know, because you have a will. Don't you think you do?

That means that, at minimum, there would be two actual wills in the universe; yours and God's. And you also believe in my will, because you're arguing with me, trying to make an impression on my thinking. That means you must believe I have a will, too. So you DO know -- if you admit to yourself what you ought to know, rationally.

You presuming that we have free will

No, I'm not assuming. You are. Your behaviour proves it.

You believe you are a will, and you are treating me as a will. And you do the same to Alexis...you talk to him as if he has a will. So you know people have wills, and that they can choose to change them. So don't say, "How the hell would I know?" Of course you know.

Do you or do you not believe the Christian God is the transcending font in understanding Creation itself?

What do you mean by your metaphor, "transcending font"? I've never seen those two words used together before.

God is his "transcending font" in that it is the moral foundation

"Transcending font" and "moral foundation" mean the same thing to you?

Let's get rid of the metaphors, and speak plainly. Take out the word "font" and the word "foundation," and speak plainly: what do you mean?

If there is no God with His "mysterious ways" able to finally explain to us in Heaven why He brought into existence all those things, I have to conclude that they "just happen" in an essentially meaningless universe. No God, no teleology. Just the "brute facticity" embedded in all of the terrible consequences of them "just happening".

Yes, that is what you would have to assume if there's no God.

But you don't know there isn't. So you don't have to assume it. And I believe there is, so I don't have to assume it.

I'm not sure what your argument is, there. Can you make it?

No. I mean, go ahead and describe it to yourself in detail.

Try to conceive how a universe would run, in which free will is real, but the environment is strictly governed so that no bad things ever happen. Picture it, if you can. Just see if it's a coherent idea.

You're asking me, an infinitesimally tiny and insgnificant speak of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is"

No. Something much simpler. I'm just asking you to imagine how your own life would go, if you lived in a world where no bad things ever are allowed to happen. Picture it. See yourself getting out of bed in the morning, and walk yourself through a day like that.

We can walk through it, if you want. But I'm pretty sure you're not interested anyway.

Did or did not this loving, just and merciful Christian God of yours create this virus? And what of those who got the disease through blood transfusions or, as a baby, was born with it?

There's debate over who created AIDS. One documentary I saw said it was a product of unethical vaccination programs in Central Africa -- if I remember correctly, scientists used chimps or bonobos as incubators, and ended up transferring the virus to humans thereby. But in any case, we can eliminate AIDS in one generation, if we could get people not to behave badly. And it would never reappear in humans again.

So whose fault is it? That's debatable. That's why I suggest you go with "earthquakes" or "volcanoes" instead.

As I said:

You don't have to worry: you're working too hard.

I will stipulate for purposes of our discussion that earthquakes happen, and that they aren't man-caused. Or, if you prefer volcanoes, that's fine too.

Yeah, but the point was you connecting the dots between these "acts of God", you, the Christian God and the terrible pain and suffering that result when they occur.

Yes, that is exactly what I intend to do. But I'm still waiting for your answer.

P.S. -- I haven't forgotten I have promised you evidence. I would like to start providing some.

However, there's a problem: I've had this discussion with Atheists before; and they always do this:

IC presents evidence X. Atheist replies that X isn't evidence. IC provides more evidence. Atheist replies that it's not enough evidence.

Try presenting your evidence to this atheist. Me. Let's see where that goes.

I will. What would you accept?

If there is nothing you will accept as evidence, then there is no discussion possible, is there? Nothing I say will be accepted.

But if there is something I could demonstrate to you that you agree would change your mind, I will.

So what would that be?

So let's not waste our time that way. Instead, I'll ask you up front: if I were to give you evidence you would accept for the existence of God, what would that look like to you?

Well, it would look a lot like the evidence someone would provide to demonstrate to those who live in a No Pope world, that, in fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- Pope Francis -- does in fact exist.[/quote]
Well, if you'll forgive me for saying so, you're making my job way too easy for me. I don't believe in Popes.

Look, Iam...I'm actually trying to help you here. I'm trying to make the question tough enough to be a challenge. Human-caused or even things half caused by humans are too easy to explain as simply the bad behavior of free will creatures. AIDS, COVID, even Black Plague...all have at least human components to them. And we can definitely blame humans for at least a significant part of their evils.

Make it hard. So far, this isn't even a challenge. Go with your "volcanoes" example, maybe.

[Dontaskme]

The actual meaning of ''Solipsism'' is pointing to your own sense of self-awareness...

No, it's (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self') is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

Someone who was genuinely "self-aware" would be aware that other selves and the real world exist, too. A solipsist is a deluded, self-absorbed, extreme skeptic.

You are still not noticing what is being pointed to.

Solipsisim is an idea ONLY...it's an idea that there is a 'self' who 'knows' it exists. BUT 'self' is just a belief that there is a 'someone' who exists. In reality, the 'someone' is a concept with no separate independant existence apart from the awareness that knows the concept.... concepts do not have awareness. There is ONLY awareness, or it's otherwise known as consciousness.

If you insist that concepts are aware...then just try and prove it, by separating out the awareness in a concept and holding that awareness out in front of you as if separate from you, as an object to be looked upon. You'll find out that it's impossible because there simply is no place you can pin point where your awareness begins and ends at the start of another awareness. All you can really know is your own awareness.

That's what actual Solipsism means...the dictionary version is misleading because it points to an owner of the mind, where there is no such owner ...And that's what you are too afraid to look at. Existence is everything and nothing, it's totally one without a second ,ALL Alone.

The belief in otherness, has no reality except as an image of the imageless.

Someone who was genuinely "self-aware" would be aware that other selves and the real world exist, too. A solipsist is a deluded, self-absorbed, extreme skeptic.

Solipsisim is pointing to a truth. It's pointing to the vast infinite open space that is awareness in which everything is known conceptually......in no way does it deny the existence of an external world, because the external world is inseparable from the awareness that knows it conceptually.

The ONE'S mind being referred to here in the dictionary simply means ''KNOWING''

And that ''knowing'' is the same in every living organism, insofar as the human organism goes, we all share the same one awareness...if we didn't, we'd all be bumping into each other.

Anyways, you have your own version of reality that only you can understand, so it's your prerogative to believe what you want. .all we are doing here as pretentious believers is showing each other our beliefs, that you are more than entitled to have since they are sourced within your own imagination.

All I can do is keep pointing you to look at an idea, but ultimately, it's up to you whether you choose to look at it for what it actually is...it's one of those penny drop moments...or you can stick with your own belief...it matters not, since all beliefs are just stories, here today, gone tomorrow...like farts in the wind.

.

[Dontaskme]

Someone who was genuinely "self-aware" would be aware that other selves and the real world exist, too. A solipsist is a deluded, self-absorbed, extreme skeptic.

I'll deal with this comment again...

But it's not a ''someone'' who is 'self-aware' IC

A ''someone'' is a concept known by the ONLY knowing there is.... YOU are that knowing.


Now see if you can point to this ''KNOWING YOU'' with your finger... see if you can touch YOU physically?

Notice what you are touching when you attempt to touch you...notice that you then appear to be two things, the toucher and the touched... except that both the toucher and the touched are one inseparable unitary happening ....that's what's being pointed to ...ok?


.

[Dontaskme]

You are both wrong. Solipsism is impossible because a mind can't exist unless there is an environment of other minds.

From the point of view of the existence of any finite thing, not only minds, nothing can exist unless it exists as a mode of Absolute existence.

Yes we are both wrong in the illusory conceptual sense there is a 'someone' who exists as a concept known, because concepts have no reality in and of themselves separate from the absolute knowing awareness.

However, concepts are only pointers when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of the conceptual knowns such as MIND and SELF ...

The absolute can only be pointed to ...You cannot experience the absolute, it's not an experience to be had by a 'someone'...because it's everything and nothing all at once, one without a second. To experience the absolute would mean splitting in half..into an experiencer and the experienced...which is impossible.

Reality is one seamless unitary action. ..there is absolutely no thing that is split off from something else.




To understand there is nothing to understand.


.

[Belinda]

You are both wrong. Solipsism is impossible because a mind can't exist unless there is an environment of other minds.

From the point of view of the existence of any finite thing, not only minds, nothing can exist unless it exists as a mode of Absolute existence.

Yes we are both wrong in the illusory conceptual sense there is a 'someone' who exists as a concept known, because concepts have no reality in and of themselves separate from the absolute knowing awareness.

However, concepts are only pointers when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of the conceptual knowns such as MIND and SELF ...

The absolute can only be pointed to ...You cannot experience the absolute, it's not an experience to be had by a 'someone'...because it's everything and nothing all at once, one without a second. To experience the absolute would mean splitting in half..into an experiencer and the experienced...which is impossible.

Reality is one seamless unitary action. ..there is absolutely no thing that is split off from something else.




To understand there is nothing to understand.


.

True, reality or The Absolute, is unitary. Unitary reality however includes us finite beings. And finite beings include us who fancy we are 'selves', and other species who have no such ideas but simply be.

So reality is generous enough to include us who think we are 'selves'.