But can’t words be guides toward having the enlightenment experience? I realize they are not the experience in and of itself.
Yes. That’s why even the Zen Buddhists, who reject dogma and scripture, use words as tools. There are Zen stories and the famous koans. It’s why Jesus spoke in parables. Words take you to the edge. The fewer words the better. Adding more words can take you away from the edge.
What is problematic is when people [driven psychologically] reify what is beyond the normal and invent more complicated word to it, e.g. an reified God which is illusory.
In Zen, the Buddhist ‘progress’ towards an extreme state of emptiness, i.e. “Reality-is …” but simultaneously submerges, engages and entangles with reality-is via various Framework and System.
For those who have never experienced the presence of God all talk of God is about illusion. Nothing of a real presence is reified, just thoughts after the fact when one tries in vain to convince others that the experience can be had by anyone.
You have to excuse Prismatic. He’s a very persistent and irrational gadfly.
And Irrellus, You’d have to excuse them for the like reason of claiming the above.
For faith is prior to its negation, and its basically a logical fallacy to see it otherwise. At the very least, a disproof is as difficult as a proof, thereby.
I agree, all talk of God is about illusion. But even those who claimed to have experienced the presence of God, what they have is real experiences but what the experiences are supposed to be about, i.e. God is most likely an illusion as well.
It is very likely to be an illusion because those who claimed to have experienced God expressed the same feelings as those who had experiences of God due to mental illness, brain damage, drugs, meditations, chemicals, hallucinogen, electrical stimulation, etc.
I have given evidences, note this one [among many] again;
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]
Those who experiences ‘God’ due to temporal epilepsy get cured of the experiences when they are treated with drugs etc.
Btw, if you belong to the very senior citizen category, it best not to argue and get entangled on such topic. Just believe in whatever you are comfortable with.
That the experience of God can be had due to conditions mentioned above may just indicate that the Kingdom is Within.
BTW, I find your advice to the elderly to be quite immature and obnoxious.
That could lead to idealism and others may lead to accuse you of solipsism and nihilism if reality and God is merely between the ears.
It was with good intentions. I apologize if you are uncomfortable with it.
What I noted is this, research indicate there is a naturally tendency for the elder to veer toward theism.
As I had argued, the propensity to theism is due to psychological impulses to seek consonance and comfort against the arising subliminal angst. Theists will go the most extreme to maintain and sustain the keep the psychological stability and peace of mind. Note Abraham was even willing to kill his own son for God [which I had proven is illusory, do not exists and is an impossibility.
Thus for most theists [maybe you are the exception] they will have a terrible psychological reactions when their belief in a God is threatened. This is why jihadists are killing atheists for not believing in a God because the presence of non-theists is an automatic threat to their psychological security. Note how theists like JSS, Aminius, Snark attack me [rather than discussing rationally and philosophically] as if I am a serious threat [subconsciously] to their well being in arguing on the question of theism.
My point is, for the elderly it obvious their reasoning power is lesser than when they were younger. Facing arguments against theism can be rather stressful. Thus it would be better to retain the peace rather being stressed in arguing and defending theism.
Apparently, your agenda does not allow you to think clearly. Not all old people are senile or closed in mentally in their own peculiar existential awareness.
Nothing of the kingdom within suggests ideals, solipsism or nihilism. It simply suggests that you are partaker of what is also without. Schweitzer and others write of an inner knowing about God. It is no wish-fulfillment. We have evolved to believe in purpose that unites the inner and outer ways of being, becoming and belonging.
Ierrellus,
…
How do you define the kingdom within Ierrellus? Is it for you wholly religious/spiritual?
At the very least, I might suggest that your inner kingdom holds ideals to be important.
Perhaps there is a bit of solipsism within believing in a God simply because one thinks and feels that he/she has personally experienced that; ergo, God exists.
I do not know about that. That seems to be simplifying things. No?
I might say that the kingdom within is ALSO a part of the human psyche and then one might go on to describe their own.
What is happening within Paul’s life which gives us a clue to his kingdom within?
I personally greatly admired Albert Schweitzer but couldn’t you say that that inner knowing was no more than a combination of intuition and let’s say spiritual qualia? I have been there but it doesn’t mean that I know God.
It may be a part of unconscious wishfulness or a beautiful play between an awesome universe seen and our brain chemistry.
Why do we use the word “know” or “knowing” when clearly we cannot?
Believe…yes.
OMG. How vain and egotistical can a person be? Ever consider the possibility that you are obnoxious as well as too closed-minded and obstinate to acknowledge the possibility that others have refuted your “arguments” (which are really nothing more than groundless assertions) to their satisfaction so they’re no longer relevant? You can only repeat yourself so many times before people realize you have nothing to say. For example, you claim empiricism is fundamental to our understanding but refuse to explore its wider implications. You thereby close the door to new ideas and hitherto unknown possibilities. This makes your perspective too narrow to be of any serious concern to a rational person.
In a psychological experiment, a group of people of mixed ages was shown pictures of two yards, one slightly smaller than the other and irregular. They were then asked which yard would take less time to mow. Which age group was most likely to give the right answer and why?
I have given a lot of considerations to the wider implications of empiricism, i.e. the empirically possible, i.e. unknown possibilities. I agree human-liked [empirically based] aliens could possibly exist somewhere in the Universe. The possibility of such is very slim but nevertheless possible. Such aliens existence can be confirmed when there are verifiable empirical evidences.
I have demonstrated the “idea” of a God is an empirical impossibility and it is not rational but rather pseudo-rational.
The “idea” of a God arose in humans’ consciousness thousands of years ago but since then there are no conclusively evidence to prove God exists as real within an empirical-rational reality.
OTOH, I have provided evidences and arguments how the “idea” of God arose within the consciousness of the majority of people due to internal psychological impulses as driven by an inherent unavoidable existential dilemma/crisis.
The only thing you’ve demonstrated is your irrelevance and irrationality.
That is a bold faced lie.
And in fact, the logical probability of aliens existing somewhere in the universe is 100%.
Provide justifiable counter arguments?
How can you prove it is 100% certainty?
There is no 100% absolute certainty within philosophy.
Your views above are too shallow.
Merely stating ‘aliens’ is insufficient.
For any ‘aliens’ to be possible and probable, they have to be empirically-based, e.g. human-liked because humans are empirically possible as evident on Earth. Or it could be bacteria, virus liked, or with other empirical elements.
Not to mention that what I said has absolutely nothing to do with “aliens.” I haven’t the foggiest where he got that from.
It’s called “mathematics”. You wouldn’t know anything about it.
See, there is a problem with all of your sermons. You can’t comprehend how much more other people know about things than you. The things that you think are sophisticated and deep, are in fact, quite shallow and trivial. You just can’t understand why or how they can be known. A cat can’t comprehend how the internet could be real.
What style of debate have you been using lately James? One that will start getting you warnings, I’d say.