Although I appreciate the 25 years you have invested in writing down the system you have described, I am sceptical of religious systems as facts and regard them as an art form, an expression of creative philosophy if you like. As you say we know by experience or example and our experiences are seldom as complex as you have described them, and a mans knowledge is often the collection of single experiences which his mind tries to sort. That is why we have so many religious traditions and interpretations because we never transport the knowledge purely and fully.
Felix,
I have always seen the “I am” statements as the attempt to portray pure wisdom confronting the puny human attempts to understand and confronting the standard experience humans use to describe everything. We see this failing when people experience a paradigm change or when someone tries to live in a foreign culture and their metaphors and analogies fail, and their morality is questioned.
The confrontation with God questions the very substance of Moses being and initiates the turn-around necessary to bring about change. That is how I have always seen this portrayal and numerous others in the Bible (especially Elijah) …
The fact that you understood my intent correctly says otherwise. No need to go contrary. I appreciate the observation that ego sum qui sum expresses the law of identity, if that’s what you were getting at. It’s just that it is embedded in a vaguely snarky run-on sentence.
Is this in keeping with the idea of Brahman and Atman? I find the fact that sentience, being the main objection to the idea of the universe just being a chemical hotpot without intention, provides the potentiality of God and Man being two of the same stuff, albeit Man has a finite physical existence. How this sentience could exist beyond the physical body gives rise to scepticism and the idea that God is the creation of Man, rather than the other way around. However, the strangeness of our awareness in a world in which millions of human beings would rather turn off their awareness attracts certain people and repels others.
I don’t think that you can reject the poetical in favour of theories or assumptions, since we live an assumption daily and poetic expression is of the same stuff, albeit refined language.
It does mean then, that everything is in some way research, wouldn’t you say? I can’t remember any single day in which I was not discovering life’s horizons and depth. It is just that we process that research in different ways. Some write stories, some write formulas, some give directions, measurements and insight to the physical nature. The same applies to all of these methods.
In fact, spiritual development was even hampered along the way. The call for orthodoxy restricted research in all directions and made sure that the official line of the church was followed. Those spiritual personalities who still managed to break out were often deemed heretics and later accepted – showing that all their crime was, was being ahead of their times.
I believe that Karen Armstrong was right in her book, “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions” that in these traditions there were basic ideas which were repeated over and over again, interrupted by political developments but proceeding and stopping as history shows, popping up as parallel developments among the Indians, Chinese, Greeks, and Jews and each time just wearing a different gown.
I am not saying that God is the creation of the man. It is certainly the other way around.
But, this sentience can surely exist beyond phyical body. Acutally, what we all sentience/consciousness is also a form of matter, the most basic one.
So, one matter creates another matter.
Consciousness creates will and will creates matter. What we see around us is nothing but a concentrated manifestantions of will.
But, one has to choose one from the many going by his knowledge, reasoning and logic.
Yes, one also has to wait till verification before embracing it as a fact. And, if evidence reffers to something else, then one must be ready to change his perception accordingly.
Yes, we all use to do some little research every day. No denying.
That is true.
I am by and large agree with that.
But, it were repeated again and again not only because these were noble ideas. The main reason was that there are some fundamental truths that manifest those very ideas. And, when clerics focus merely on those ideas without digging enough for fundaments, they tend to end up being fanatic.
Bob, i would like you to go through my other posts in this thread too to get you the clear perception of what i am saying, if you will not find those lengthy.
Yes, with attendant metaphysical reasoning, efforts and hermeneutic of evidences. In other words, in that category of those processes that I call faith where things are neither verifiable nor falsifiable and even probability slips from your fingers. Math has provided you a wonderful tool. But is it more than an analogy for a category of being will remain forever hypothetical? Faith says yes. Fact says "I don’t know.
In the human world, consensus in various form is as close as can be gotten to truth. The majority of one never knows if his fantasy is more than a chimera unless he can get confirmation. Such is the problem of confirmation bias that even then people seek out those persons, groups, institutions ands sources that confirm their biases. The internet has apparently increased and facilitated confirmation bias. How will reason save us if we retreat only to our own counsel?
OK. Then, for what it’s worth, you have my take on it above.
Faith comprises of two things; event/evidence and their explanation too. In other words, according to the faith, firstly a Christian would have to believe that Jesus played out in the same way as described in the Bible. And secondly, he (a christian) would also have to believe that each and every word of Jesus about the God was also true.
But, i am not doing that. I belive in some particular metaphysical premises because of my own experiences, not any ancient scripture. Yes, i am taking some help in finding the explanation of those experiences. But, i still do not consider that part as a fact but only a theory.
Only explanations are open to negation or amendment, not experience itself.
And, by the way, math has nothing to do with all this, at least at prima-facie.
I more or less agree with that. That is why i did not ask you to take it as a fact but theory only. That is allowed in philosophy.
But, this does not mean that all these premises cannot be proved physically at all. It is quite possible for some of those, if not all.
You have set the bar too high, I think. The Gospels tell a story of a woman who was healed [read saved] by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment. Did she meet your legal definition of faith? I doubt it. But, the story makes the point that she touched the divine. healing = salvation=touching the divine. Salvation as touching the divine can be [must be?] experiential. It may not be propositional.
We agree on all that.
Well you’d have to show them. Meanwhile we are pretty close considering we have approached God from the orientations of two different religions. If there are idiosyncrasies I don’t know if they lie with me or you or both. My understanding religious faith is that it is different that mere assent to a proposition. It is the means to realize an experience of the divine. But it doesn’t get confirmed by scientific evidence at least not yet and maybe never. I inadvertently offended one person here because I analyzed his religious expereince in terms of how I understand faith. But that’s the way I see it at this point.
I do not see all this in that way.
I approch religions and spirituality in scientific and logical way, instead of any faith or superstition.
Yes, everything must not be a mere proposition but have some hard evidences too.
The story of that women certainly meets my definition. And, it is no miracle either. Everything has explanation.
The human is not a singular entity but a two folded one. It has two bodies; soul and physical. They are different but interconnected and influence each other too. The spiritual body is more dominant. In other words, we can say that physical body is the reflection of the spiritul body.
So, if you can cause any change to spiritual body, it would reflect on the physical body too. The reverse of this process is also happens. So, what we see as miracles in all these curing and healing incidents, is nothing but curing spiritual body. And, that cure reflects its impacts on the physcial body too.
Felix, have a look at these personal incidents on mine-
So, you can see that there are no miracles whatsoever in real sense. It is just our lack of understanding that sees all this as miracles. And, perhaps you will also able to understand why i am so sure about certain things.
Yes felix, i am very much aware of the fact that the burden of the proof is on me, not the listener. That is the only reason why i do not make any claims as of now and present all this merely as a theory.
But, let me tell you that some portion of this can be proved scientifically and publically. I also know how it could be done and aware of this since years. But, i am waiting for my moments to come. And, they are just around the corner.
I know a guy who claims God gave him a vision. The experience actually lasted a couple weeks as he tells it. He would get up in the morning and God would start showing him things and unraveling mysteries. He says God did this for him because “I needed it.” His “vision” is sometimes plausible in a metaphysical kind of way and sometimes so idiosyncratic that it is unintelligible. it doesn’t seem to be a danger to him or others to accept it. But, he asserts that it is personal–God gave it to him because he needed it. I could psychoanalyze it, but he isn’t looking to be cured of it. So, I simply accept that’s the way it is for him. If he were to try to persuade me of it, my skepticism would kick in. I’m feeling that way toward your testimony as well.
You are free to think whatever you like. I neither mind nor feel any hurt by that. Because, i can understand your POV. Once upon a time, before all this happened, i was of the same opinion as yours. I would have reacted in the same way if anyone else would come up with such stuff. I know that is quite hard to digest.
Having said that, and even putting my mental experiences aside, i cannot deny what i experienced phycially and still experiencing. Denial of that would be illogical for me. And, it is not the case that i did never question myself. It happened thousands times. It is that questioning that leads to investige religions and scriptures. I wanted to be sure if i am under some illusion or not. But, my investigation assured me that there is nothing unnatural in all that and every phenomenon has explanation. So, whenever i tried to see it from an objective POV, the answer was the same.
But, i never ask anyone to believe me. That is why i always present my cogitations merely as a theory, not a fact. But, you asked for the evidence. That is why i put those forth.
Nice post Felix
The POE is the problem of absolutes. Anytime you admit of an mixture, what for the fundamentalist would be considered an impossible impurity, you break the logical circle of the problem.
Consciousness brings the problem of individuality. What is it like being God? And also the problem about the origin of consciousness. In our experience, consciousness requires a brain. When, as in the case of God, this is absurd, then “consciousness” means something unknown.
Thanks Omar. God is conscious by definition if omniscience entails consciousness. But, God is perhaps conscious only analogically to human consciousness. Human consciousness may be a mere shadow of God’s.
I don’t know. This consciousness wasn’t created by me. As a result it’s not my consciousness. So it must be God’s consciousness. Maybe that’s how God is omniscient.