God is real... in the mind only.

[playhavock]

In here, I will forward my theory that God is real in the mind only, giving reason that we should conclude this is true.

I will refer to "God" as (G) for this theory, as God could also be taken to be Gods/god/gods.

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

[kayky]

It seems to me that religions are a codification of a personal spiritual experience. For the majority of beleivers in any particular religion it is a translative experience. i.e. it translates, for instance, the apparent suffering we perceive into sometning that is more understandable - it brings meaning and legitimacy to the believer's life experience.

I think this is very true.

For a very few, as you observe, the mystics, religion is a transformative experienec p the god concept transforms the mystic from a mere believer to being the divine. The cup is emptied, as you so eloquently put it. However the mysti does not so much fill the cup - he/she BECOMES the filled cup.

I think you just out-eloquenced my eloquence.

I too have a disciplined practice, I do not presuppose it will lead me to a god experience, nor did I embark on it with the hope of a 'god experience'. It has, however, lead me to an understanding of the nature of being, which I hold to be sacred. It has not lead me to a god belief, be it a personal god or a deist version.

perhaps, as you claim, the word god itself comes with too much baggage to be of any use in discussing spirituality.

I have a strong feeling that we are talking about the same experience. I will probably always couch my discussion of this in religious language because religious ritual plays such an important role in my spiritual practice. And I'm sure cultural influence motivated me to seek it out as a "God-experience in the first place.

[Flail]

It seems to me that religions are a codification of a personal spiritual experience. For the majority of beleivers in any particular religion it is a translative experience. i.e. it translates, for instance, the apparent suffering we perceive into sometning that is more understandable - it brings meaning and legitimacy to the believer's life experience.

I think this is very true.

For a very few, as you observe, the mystics, religion is a transformative experienec p the god concept transforms the mystic from a mere believer to being the divine. The cup is emptied, as you so eloquently put it. However the mysti does not so much fill the cup - he/she BECOMES the filled cup.

I think you just out-eloquenced my eloquence.

I too have a disciplined practice, I do not presuppose it will lead me to a god experience, nor did I embark on it with the hope of a 'god experience'. It has, however, lead me to an understanding of the nature of being, which I hold to be sacred. It has not lead me to a god belief, be it a personal god or a deist version.

perhaps, as you claim, the word god itself comes with too much baggage to be of any use in discussing spirituality.

I have a strong feeling that we are talking about the same experience. I will probably always couch my discussion of this in religious language because religious ritual plays such an important role in my spiritual practice. And I'm sure cultural influence motivated me to seek it out as a "God-experience in the first place.

I respect your beliefs believe me, but which ritual practices do you find meaningful and why? When I was a practicing Christian the rituals to me were just silly and a waste of valuable time.

[Flail]

All we want to know is if there is anything "outside" of your mind that makes you (and we're are looking for something from you, something personal, an experience you've had) that makes you believe. Or is it all simply in your head, like placebo?

I do not think it is just inside my head like a placebo. My experience has shaped my beliefs.

Do you agree that had the happenstance of birth found you in say Pakistan, born to Muslim parents that your life and spiritual experiences would have been informed by a totally different indoctrination, with different supernatural beings, and thus quite dissimilar to your experiences today?

[kayky]

Playhavoc:

You assume (for sake of this I am assuming that you assume) that one HAS a preconception about "God" in fact- isnt the nature of any relgion to TELL one what God is?

Yes. Most religions do attempt to describe God. That is where our preconceptions usually come from. And this can be a real hindrance to spiritual practice. But it can be overcome. Then the religion becomes your tool rather than the other way around.

Secondly - if God exists- why would your (or mine) preconceptions "get in the way" as it were to fourming any connection to it?

Let me put it in human terms. If you decide you have me all sized up before you even meet me, you will have a lot to overcome in getting to know the real me.

And add to this the problem that the Christan God (for most but maybe not all christans) is a God that WANTS us to connect to it - why then would God alow and/or have barriers in the brain that could possibly or even probley prevent people from reaching the thing God wants most?

I do not know what God wants or what God can or cannot allow. But I can say that God has not constructed any barriers. These are constructions of our own making. Ironically, the very thing we have created to seek God (religion) can sometimes create the biggest obstacles.

Finaly - if one DOES reach this "actual" God - how can one ever know - what if they reached a false God? What if they were wrong? How can they know?

Was it a transformative experience? Did it make you a better person, a more loving person? If so, don't question it.

Lastly, I sugest for your cup that this is a false analigy fallacy.

I'm not sure you're in a position to say this since it is an analogy of my personal experience. So you'll have to explain to me what you mean.

Thats a nice assertion there. And it is your view and/or belife and/or opionion, however - you can not simply assert something as true and leave it at that - certenly I did not do that in my OP. What, if any reasion do you have to suport your statment?

Your argument is based on the premise that God does not exist outside the human imagination. It is a presumptive premise, and without it your argument fails. You ask me to prove that God exists. I ask you to prove that God does not exist. I predict that we both will fail to do so.

Indeed, again people can belive things, and experance things - that are not true externaly. They are true in the essance that they cause and/or create chemical reactions inside of them that may, or may not - effect there body phyiscaly - this might result in a postitve or negitve effect. But it has no baring on if the thing they are refering to is actual. More then likely - it is not.

What if it isn't just a chemical reaction in the brain? Can you simply assume this?

"the truth is the truth regardles if we like it, want it to be, know it to be, or belive it is so - it is still true."

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

How can you know that it can not be known?

How can we know something that exists outside the physical universe?

Questonmark!? This seems to fly in the face of Christantiy and most (but not all) views of (G)

LOL. Yes. As many Christians on this site have pointed out to me! Like many Episcopalians I am a panentheist. The physical universe is God coming into form, emanating from the transcendence of God which remains outside it.

What would it be, if not just a concept - an emotion?

Because it doesn't involve emotion at all. I am not talking about the emotional mob hysteria you witness in some churches.

Emotions, are in essance chemical reactions. The feeling - is just that a feeling, maybe a good one, maybe a bad one. I can generate them in myself by thinking about postive or negitve things, I can generate them by watching happy or disturbing immagary / movies. So - in that sence we can experance and feel things - those feelings are real in our brains - but "real" out side ourselfs - no. "Fear" "Happy" (etc) do not exist "outside" of us. So this would still put (G) into the relm of existing only in the brain.

You are attempting to explain something you do not understand.

I really hope that one day we as a socity will find a way to make sure this does not happen. But, for this talk - this is not relevent. It might be that the "fundy" view is actualy true - sure they are koo-koo for cocopuffs, insain, etc but that does not meen what they claim is not true - of course , I see no reasion to think it is true.

Well, I'm not sure you could ever pass a law to prevent parents from raising their children in their chosen religion.

Okay. So when you focus on (G) your brain trigers the love cheicals in your brain. You feel disconected from this, but also connected to it, thus you are part of it, and you feel that you are not. You have helped me show again , that (G) exists in your brain. You could also make yourself feel love by focusng on someone you love , someone you want to love, watching a romantic movie, just THINKING about love. And verous other meens, some might even be beter at producing love in your brain then thinking about (G) does. Some less so.

I am not talking about love as a human emotion. It's impossible to describe this experience without making it sound like something it isn't. Human language is too limited.

I agree. I would interject that whenever we say anything about (G) we are placing our
own ideas about it into play... because that is all (G) is, an idea. Nothing more.

This is simply your opinion. Nothing more.

How do you know what the actuality is?

You have to have faith in your ability to know. This is not something that should be approached lightly.

[Flail]

Playhavoc:

You assume (for sake of this I am assuming that you assume) that one HAS a preconception about "God" in fact- isnt the nature of any relgion to TELL one what God is?

Yes. Most religions do attempt to describe God. That is where our preconceptions usually come from. And this can be a real hindrance to spiritual practice. But it can be overcome. Then the religion becomes your tool rather than the other way around.

Secondly - if God exists- why would your (or mine) preconceptions "get in the way" as it were to fourming any connection to it?

Let me put it in human terms. If you decide you have me all sized up before you even meet me, you will have a lot to overcome in getting to know the real me.

And add to this the problem that the Christan God (for most but maybe not all christans) is a God that WANTS us to connect to it - why then would God alow and/or have barriers in the brain that could possibly or even probley prevent people from reaching the thing God wants most?

I do not know what God wants or what God can or cannot allow. But I can say that God has not constructed any barriers. These are constructions of our own making. Ironically, the very thing we have created to seek God (religion) can sometimes create the biggest obstacles.

Finaly - if one DOES reach this "actual" God - how can one ever know - what if they reached a false God? What if they were wrong? How can they know?

Was it a transformative experience? Did it make you a better person, a more loving person? If so, don't question it.

Lastly, I sugest for your cup that this is a false analigy fallacy.

I'm not sure you're in a position to say this since it is an analogy of my personal experience. So you'll have to explain to me what you mean.

Thats a nice assertion there. And it is your view and/or belife and/or opionion, however - you can not simply assert something as true and leave it at that - certenly I did not do that in my OP. What, if any reasion do you have to suport your statment?

Your argument is based on the premise that God does not exist outside the human imagination. It is a presumptive premise, and without it your argument fails. You ask me to prove that God exists. I ask you to prove that God does not exist. I predict that we both will fail to do so.

Indeed, again people can belive things, and experance things - that are not true externaly. They are true in the essance that they cause and/or create chemical reactions inside of them that may, or may not - effect there body phyiscaly - this might result in a postitve or negitve effect. But it has no baring on if the thing they are refering to is actual. More then likely - it is not.

What if it isn't just a chemical reaction in the brain? Can you simply assume this?

"the truth is the truth regardles if we like it, want it to be, know it to be, or belive it is so - it is still true."

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

How can you know that it can not be known?

How can we know something that exists outside the physical universe?

Questonmark!? This seems to fly in the face of Christantiy and most (but not all) views of (G)

LOL. Yes. As many Christians on this site have pointed out to me! Like many Episcopalians I am a panentheist. The physical universe is God coming into form, emanating from the transcendence of God which remains outside it.

What would it be, if not just a concept - an emotion?

Because it doesn't involve emotion at all. I am not talking about the emotional mob hysteria you witness in some churches.

Emotions, are in essance chemical reactions. The feeling - is just that a feeling, maybe a good one, maybe a bad one. I can generate them in myself by thinking about postive or negitve things, I can generate them by watching happy or disturbing immagary / movies. So - in that sence we can experance and feel things - those feelings are real in our brains - but "real" out side ourselfs - no. "Fear" "Happy" (etc) do not exist "outside" of us. So this would still put (G) into the relm of existing only in the brain.

You are attempting to explain something you do not understand.

I really hope that one day we as a socity will find a way to make sure this does not happen. But, for this talk - this is not relevent. It might be that the "fundy" view is actualy true - sure they are koo-koo for cocopuffs, insain, etc but that does not meen what they claim is not true - of course , I see no reasion to think it is true.

Well, I'm not sure you could ever pass a law to prevent parents from raising their children in their chosen religion.

Okay. So when you focus on (G) your brain trigers the love cheicals in your brain. You feel disconected from this, but also connected to it, thus you are part of it, and you feel that you are not. You have helped me show again , that (G) exists in your brain. You could also make yourself feel love by focusng on someone you love , someone you want to love, watching a romantic movie, just THINKING about love. And verous other meens, some might even be beter at producing love in your brain then thinking about (G) does. Some less so.

I am not talking about love as a human emotion. It's impossible to describe this experience without making it sound like something it isn't. Human language is too limited.

I agree. I would interject that whenever we say anything about (G) we are placing our
own ideas about it into play... because that is all (G) is, an idea. Nothing more.

This is simply your opinion. Nothing more.

How do you know what the actuality is?

You have to have faith in your ability to know. This is not something that should be approached lightly.

Most religions describe God and in doing so presuppose everything...how could they do otherwise. I have no presuppositions about God as I have no real idea of what a God would consist of....and, so far as I can discern, neither does anyone else.

[playhavock]

I do not think it is just inside my head like a placebo. My experience has shaped my beliefs.

That is somewhat the problem, "I do not ``think''' this is (X)" is not a way to know if it is or is not (X). We can (with machines) messure what is going on in our brains. The problem is we have no indacation that this experance is comming from anywhere beside our brain. We have nothing to sugest that this feeling/emotion/experance whatever you want to call it is anything beound our own internal brain causing itself to feel/experance whatever we are telling it to (or wanting it to) nothing points to (G). You can THINK or BELIVE but this does not tell us if it is real outside of you. So again, my theroy is sound so far.

[kayky]

I respect your beliefs believe me, but which ritual practices do you find meaningful and why? When I was a practicing Christian the rituals to me were just silly and a waste of valuable time.

I think it might have actually been to my advantage that I grew up in a fundamentalist church that looked with disdain on most ritual. They did baptize converts and take "communion" a few times a year and that was it.

My spiritual crisis began in my early thirties. I realized that the religion I was raised in was complete bunk, and for a while I was an angry atheist (I'm not saying all atheists are angry). I found this very unsatisfying. I began to study: at first other religions, then the Christian mystics. One statement struck me (I don't even remember who said it): Ritual is the language of the soul.

So when I became an Episcopalian as an adult, I approached the ritual involved with a great deal of seriousness and appreciation. The promenade of the priests with their staffed crosses and huge Bible, followed by the choir as we all join in a hymn. The reciting of the liturgy and the creed, part of which is done on our knees, intercepted with the ethereal voices of a choir singing in Latin. The scripture readings and a short uplifting sermon. And especially the Eucharist, taken at the altar every Sunday. I realize that I am taking part in something very ancient and steeped in mystery. I find it profoundly moving.

[kayky]

Do you agree that had the happenstance of birth found you in say Pakistan, born to Muslim parents that your life and spiritual experiences would have been informed by a totally different indoctrination, with different supernatural beings, and thus quite dissimilar to your experiences today?

I agree with all of this except the notion that Allah is a different God from mine. I'm not one of those people who thinks there is one true religion.

If I had been born in Pakistan, I probably would not have had the opportunity to explore other religious options. And, well, as a woman...let's just say I'm glad I wasn't born in Pakistan.

[kayky]

Flail:

Most religions describe God and in doing so presuppose everything...how could they do otherwise. I have no presuppositions about God as I have no real idea of what a God would consist of....and, so far as I can discern, neither does anyone else.

As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I would not presume anything about God beyond my personal experience.

[playhavock]

kayky

Yes. Most religions do attempt to describe God. That is where our preconceptions usually come from. And this can be a real hindrance to spiritual practice. But it can be overcome. Then the religion becomes your tool rather than the other way around.

Why bother to overcome it?

Let me put it in human terms. If you decide you have me all sized up before you even meet me, you will have a lot to overcome in getting to know the real me.

I think again, this would fall into "false analigy" catagory fallacy - I can varify that you exist.

I do not know what God wants or what God can or cannot allow. But I can say that God has not constructed any barriers.

How can you say anything about (G) when you just admited that you do not know what (G) wants? How would you know that (G) has not constructed a barrier?

Was it a transformative experience?

Irrevelent to if the experance points to or is from (G)

Did it make you a better person, a more loving person?

Irrevelent to this is comming from (G) or not.

If so, don't question it.

Question, EVERYTHING. I question you saying to me to not question something, in fact I now more then ever want to question the thing you told me not to because I suspect there is something amiss with it.

I'm not sure you're in a position to say this since it is an analogy of my personal experience. So you'll have to explain to me what you mean.

The "Cup" is not full or empty was an analogy for yourself - not for a group- then yes, it might not fall under the catagory of false analgy fallacy errors, you had/have had experance (Y) that you want to explain to me, this (Y) is what I am refering to being in the brain. The (Y) for you (and others) is said to come from (G) but there is no pointer to this, there is no corralation, no evedance for it, the only evedance we have is of (Y) and that proves my point again (Y) is in the brain. Thats it.

Your argument is based on the premise that God does not exist outside the human imagination.

Wrong. My augment no where has the word imagination. Strawman.

It is a presumptive premise,

That does not (nessarly) make an augment invalad. You must show how the premis is false - in this case, show that (G) exists outside of the mind. I have given good reasions to think that it is only in the mind. It is now up to you to show I am wrong.

You ask me to prove that God exists.

No, the burdan of proof is upon whoever makes a claim. I asked no one to prove anything other then my premices are flawed. No one has done this as yet.

I ask you to prove that God does not exist.

Shifting the burdan.

But, I allready have - my theroy - if true (and you have not shown it to be false, or negated any of my premices so far) holds then God exists in the brain only.

I predict that we both will fail to do so.

Even more reasion to be a skeptic and not a belvier. However, let me point out that one can not prove a negitve. We can not, for example - prove that people can not fly. We can give good reasions to suspect this is not the case. But the one making the claim that people can fly, should have the buran to show this is so. For more on not being able to prove negtives, I sugest watching this video:
(James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative)

What if it isn't just a chemical reaction in the brain?

A nice "what if" have you done studys to show that it is not?

Can you simply assume this?

We do not have to! We have scientific study to study the brain, and in fact, could study someone that is claiming to have an experance of (G) we can messure verous chemical and electro signals that are produced. We can graph it. In fact - people have done just this. It appears that no matter the relgion all people that can experance this have simular results. We also note that not ALL subjects can acheve this "experance" this indacates that people are unable to - due most likely to the way there brain works (or does not work if you like) addionaly with injections we can cause experances. This all points to the fact that this is happening in our brain. We see no evedane to sugest anything else. We do not have to assume - we can KNOW, via science. Reality is wonderfull in that way.

How can we know something that exists outside the physical universe?

We can not unless we can access it to study it.

LOL. Yes. As many Christians on this site have pointed out to me! Like many Episcopalians I am a panentheist. The physical universe is God coming into form, emanating from the transcendence of God which remains outside it.

I'll have to look up what most of these words are. Might I sugest that the idea of God exists in your brain, and that does not negate your feelings and/or experance, in fact it alows you to find better ways to produce better feelings once you learn the truth about how things work - I understand medataion - I do not practice it offen, only in breaf moments to calm myself - and I can if I want - acheeve a better result then I did when I was a beliver that (G) was a real thing (outthere) for now I do not have to worry about offending it or doing something wrong with my own internal thinking. I no longer have to self censor myself and so on - the truth is much more freeing then the non-truth. I am in control (to some extent) of my brain, and so are you.

Because it doesn't involve emotion at all. I am not talking about the emotional mob hysteria you witness in some churches.

What are you talking about?

You are attempting to explain something you do not understand.

Can you read my mind?
How do you know that I do not understand it?
Are you sure that it is you that does not understand it?
Seems like your statment is saying that I am making an augment of ignorance, but how can you know?

Well, I'm not sure you could ever pass a law to prevent parents from raising their children in their chosen religion.

I'm not sure, the idea "it takes a town to rase a child" might not be such a bad idea, but I will leave poltics aside. :p

I am not talking about love as a human emotion.

....? Questionmark times 99.

It's impossible to describe this experience without making it sound like something it isn't. Human language is too limited.

Invent new words then.
Might I sugest that your experance is a product of your own brain that you are producing, and that this is actualy better to accept then to think it is something other then yourself?

(me)
I agree. I would interject that whenever we say anything about (G) we are placing our own ideas about it into play... because that is all (G) is, an idea. Nothing more.

(them)

This is simply your opinion. Nothing more.

Sigh. I've given you (and others) to think that my theroy is correct. Unless or untill you can show that it is flawed it is my hypothisis. Perhaps you can produce your augment to show that my augment is flawed.

You have to have faith in your ability to know.

You must have faith in my stuffed bulbasaur to know why my fingers can bend in an odd way.

This is not something that should be approached lightly.

I do not aproch it as such. But, I do not see why we can not, from time to time interject some humor into our talks, otherwise it can get dull for the audance.

Right bulbasaur?



Also this:



Even I have no idea what this has to do with my own topic.
Wait, perhaps bulbasar + my fingers is the answer to everything - let me medatate upon this for a moment, I'm sure nothing could possibly go wron-