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.

[playhavock]

At the same time, I have been debating the OP. I don't think it disproves God. Do you?

Ah, you make a catagory error. Recall I say that (G) is real, in the brain only. This is not a disprove of it, for it is an idea. We can only show that it is an idea, not that it does not exist, since clearly - the idea exists. I am not trying to show something imposible - mainly - proving a negitve, in this case "(G) does not exist" no where have I said this, in fact I have said that (G) exists - in the brain. As an idea.

Of course you (and others) have had experance, and people want to do two things -

1: They want you to objectivly look at your own belifes and be able to see that your experance might not be from what you think it is from.

2: Find out if any claims you (or others that belive) make are true.

This is why they are asking critical questions to you. They are in agreement with my augment I assume, or they would be showing flaws in it. You are trying to weeken my augment in an intreging method - to be sure - but it does not follow the way persanary dialoge functions - and so far - has not worked.

What you must do is show why (G) is not in the brain. Give reasions to question my premices, facts to back that up and so on. You have not done this.

What you did do - a tangent of storts - is to say that if we (as a race) used only science to find out things - that we would (as a race) no longer require two things:

1: Relgion (right)
2: Arts (wrong)

The arts are an expression of "self" that comes from evalution and we expect this to be so. It does not suprise me that people injoy making and viewing art in verous formats - we would expect this to be so given the nature of evoultion and the brain. So, no - if we as a race used the scientific method to deside what is true / false we would not disgard the arts. We would discard relgion and mytholighy and the nonsence that is attached to it. We would not discard the community or singing or dancing together (or other socal actitivitys) bits. We can keep the good parts and get rid of the bad - that is the bad that comes from superstition and mytholigy.

Again and again I've urged you to be able to say that experance (Y) is not from (G) but, for whatever reasion, you are unwilling to do this - as far as I can tell. This then to me, indacates that you have a confermation bias, you WANT it to be (G) and thus it is.

Thats fine. My point remains, (G) is in the brain.

By the way shifting the word "Brain" to "immagentaion" is a logical error of shifing the defention (or word) and it is to be avoided.

I see also a bit of anger (I could be wrong) since you say "you should watch that video!" -- well, yes, I did - this is why I am recomending it. One can not prove a negitve, but we can give very - VERY good reastions to suspect it is not true. I have given reasions (are they good?) to suspcet that (G) is in the brain. (not mind/immagation but brain) and you have given none to think it is anything other then this.

Now, in order for you personaly to avoid others questioning your ideas perhaps you can make a new topic, and/or simply not answer questions - if you feel that you are being overwhelemed and wish to debate me 1 on 1 I will be glad to do so. However, I fear the results would not be favorable to you on at least a technocal level. But of course you have meny choices to what to do. The one I would want to promote regardless of anything else is for you to be able to see that perhaps you are wrong about this "experance" that you THINK is from (G) and that perhaps the experance is your own brain. Are you willing to conseder this? If not - then I fear we are done here in our conversation, as for the premices - they hold.

[kayky]

Ah, you make a catagory error. Recall I say that (G) is real, in the brain only.

You misread my post. I said that human transformation occurs in the human mind--not that God exists only in the human mind.

This is not a disprove of it, for it is an idea. We can only show that it is an idea, not that it does not exist, since clearly - the idea exists. I am not trying to show something imposible - mainly - proving a negitve, in this case "(G) does not exist" no where have I said this, in fact I have said that (G) exists - in the brain. As an idea.

This looks like disingenuous backpedaling to me.

Of course you (and others) have had experance, and people want to do two things -

1: They want you to objectivly look at your own belifes and be able to see that your experance might not be from what you think it is from.

2: Find out if any claims you (or others that belive) make are true.

This is why they are asking critical questions to you.

Don't you think it presumptuous to declare the motivations of others?

They are in agreement with my augment I assume, or they would be showing flaws in it. You are trying to weeken my augment in an intreging method - to be sure - but it does not follow the way persanary dialoge functions - and so far - has not worked.

Well, I'm sure you are already aware of the old saying about assuming things. As for the rest of the above quote, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What you must do is show why (G) is not in the brain. Give reasions to question my premices, facts to back that up and so on. You have not done this.

No. I don't. All I have to do is point out the flaw in your logic. I have done this quite well.

What you did do - a tangent of storts - is to say that if we (as a race) used only science to find out things - that we would (as a race) no longer require two things:

1: Relgion (right)
2: Arts (wrong)

The arts are an expression of "self" that comes from evalution and we expect this to be so. It does not suprise me that people injoy making and viewing art in verous formats - we would expect this to be so given the nature of evoultion and the brain. So, no - if we as a race used the scientific method to deside what is true / false we would not disgard the arts. We would discard relgion and mytholighy and the nonsence that is attached to it. We would not discard the community or singing or dancing together (or other socal actitivitys) bits. We can keep the good parts and get rid of the bad - that is the bad that comes from superstition and mytholigy.

I was simply pointing out that there are areas of human experience that cannot be understood by using the scientific method. Of course science has not done away with these things. Not even religion.

Again and again I've urged you to be able to say that experance (Y) is not from (G) but, for whatever reasion, you are unwilling to do this - as far as I can tell. This then to me, indacates that you have a confermation bias, you WANT it to be (G) and thus it is.

I am not here to prove my experience of God. I have simply answered questions about it. I am here to point out the flaws in the OP, which I have done.

Thats fine. My point remains, (G) is in the brain.

You are simply in denial about what has occurred on this thread.

By the way shifting the word "Brain" to "immagentaion" is a logical error of shifing the defention (or word) and it is to be avoided.

Do you know what a synonym is? Why should they be avoided?

I see also a bit of anger (I could be wrong) since you say "you should watch that video!" -- well, yes, I did - this is why I am recomending it.

I very rarely get angry. I credit this to my spiritual work. I usually reserve anger for serious things like social injustice. My suggestion that you watch the video was not sarcasm. If you have watched the video, it is obvious you did not understand it. Your entire OP is an attempt to prove a negative.

One can not prove a negitve, but we can give very - VERY good reastions to suspect it is not true. I have given reasions (are they good?) to suspcet that (G) is in the brain. (not mind/immagation but brain) and you have given none to think it is anything other then this.

Your reasons may seem good to you; but it is not evidence, and it may be rejected by others. My personal experience may be meaningless to you, but it means a great deal to me. I never claimed it was evidence.

Now, in order for you personaly to avoid others questioning your ideas perhaps you can make a new topic, and/or simply not answer questions - if you feel that you are being overwhelemed

I do not feel in the least overwhelmed and think it would be rude to ignore the questions of others. As a matter of fact, I have enjoyed it very much. I love to share my ideas with others.

nd wish to debate me 1 on 1 I will be glad to do so. However, I fear the results would not be favorable to you on at least a technocal level. But of course you have meny choices to what to do

I do not wish to debate you one on one because I think this topic has run its course. You're just having trouble accepting it. The only technological disadvantage I have is that I've only had this iPhone less than a month, and I'm just now learning to type with my thumbs. I would be happy to post on any thread you create if it's a subject I'm interested in.

e one I would want to promote regardless of anything else is for you to be able to see that perhaps you are wrong about this "experance" that you THINK is from (G) and that perhaps the experance is your own brain. Are y
You willing to conseder this? If not - then I fear we are done here in our conversation,

I've been on my spiritual path for decades. Do you honestly think I have not poured a great deal of critical thought into it? Do you honestly think you can come on here and change my mind in one thread? You are right about one thing though. There is no point in further debating this OP. Feel free, however, to respond to this post.

To those others who have been dialoguing with me on this thread, I still look forward to your responses. This has been interesting .

as for the premices - they hold.

Sorry, kid. It was a good effort on your part. But you can declare that the premise holds till the cows come home. That won't make it so.

[playhavock]

I never backpedled, my statment from the start is the same as it is now.

My premices hold. You have not shown them to be flawed.

My logic holds, you can not and have not shown it to be invalad.

You make a bold declartion that I am doing something impossible, when I am clearly not doing that something, in a try at diswading the whole augment rather then showing it is invalad.

You project things upon me then say that I should not do the same to others.

My "declration" of motives of others is based upon what I have learned of the typical reasions why skeptics ask critical questions. I could be wrong. But so far everyone asking you critical questions seems to follow these trends.

You avoid answering my question about if you will even conseder that it is not (G) that is doing the experance of (Y) but is rather your brain at work.

So to sumerise:

Dodge. Shifting burden. Ad-homin. Strawmaning. Refusal to negate premices. Hyprocritical mandates.

-
That is a ton of fallacys and errors here. Perhaps I sugest reading the book I am holding in my avatar (Informal Logic) or some book like it, for I am seeing flaw after flaw in critical thinking and reasioning here. You say you have won but you have not. You have not yet shown that a single part of my premices are flawed. Calling into question my logic shows that you do not understand how debate functions or its rules. You have also not shown my logic to be flawed.

You talk about "transformation" whatever this is and other things that make zero sence objectivly as you addmit that none of these things can be proven, yet belive they are from (G) .... without any way to SHOW they are.

I, on the other hand. Still have good augments for why (G) exists only in the brain. As above. I'm still waiting for you to show them to be invalad.

Finaly, you refuse to debate me, and thats fine, I'd rather debate someone who understands the mechanics of it then someone who does not. I view you as someone who does not - you can learn. Let me know when you do. (read a book!)

Let me recap my orginal augment.

1 (G) is a universal consept that no one can agree upon.

2 (G) is also a patular consept that no one can agree upon.

3 Universals only exist in the brain.

4 Patulars exist in the real world and can be varifyed to be there, we can use words to discribe both patulars and universals.

5 We can not agree upon what the patualr of (G) is or show that (G) is a patular.

6 This sugests that (G) is a universal.

7 If (G) is a universal, it must be real in the brain only.

Conclsion (G) is real in the brain only, being a universal.

Addional problem: no one can agree upon the universal of what (G) is sugesting that it is a consept rather then an actual thing.

[kayky]

This sounds like a temper tantrum. Are you sure you're mature enough to engage in serious debate? You sound very young. Feelings can get bruised here.

[scourge99]

I am quite sure that you are very confident in the truth of your beliefs. But reciting your own confidence does nothing in a debate forum where people such as myself are looking for reason and evidence to take your claims seriously.

As you discuss your beliefs I feel you do your case more harm than good because you (I assume unintentionally) mimic the exact same types of arguments con-artists and quacks use to defraud the gullible. For example,
1) you expect us to take your word for it based on anecdotes and your personal testimony.
2) you makes blanket accusations of scientism and close mindedness against skeptics and detractors.
3) you claim to have secret knowledge and methods (gnosis).
4) you use vague and obtuse explanations (E.G., (a) god is love. (b) The transcendence of God is a mystery to us and cannot be known by us. But the aspect of God that actually IS nature is not "supernatural" at all.)


In conclusion, is there anything you have to offer in support of your claims about spirituality and "god" that any interested but skeptical person can use to verify your claims?

This thread is not a debate about my beliefs.

You have made this thread about your beliefs because you have presented your personal experiences and beliefs about god and spirituality as reason to disagree with others on this thread.

If you do not want others to question and critique your personal beliefs then don't bring them up to make a point on a debate forum.

But some posters here have asked me questions about why I believe the way I do, and I have simply been answering those questions.

I have questioned your god beliefs and experiences because you have presented your god beliefs and experiences as reason/evidence in a debate. Do you think its unfair or rude to question the claims and statements of others on a public debate forum?

At the same time, I have been debating the OP. I don't think it disproves God. Do you?

You have suspiciously misrepresented the OP. Nowhere in the OP do i see any mention of "disproving god". Proofs are only valid in math, alcohol, and strict logic. The OP specifically mentions "concluding" and "reasonable to think" which implies he is not presenting a proof or "proving". It appears to me that you have twisted the words and claimed that the OP is making a proof or "proving". That is an error on your part.

And yes, there is strong evidence and reason to believe that gods only exist in the minds of believers and not objectively. Ironically, your claims of gnosis and unverifiable, unevidenced god experiences lend support to that very idea.

[scourge99]

dupe

[kayky]

You have made this thread about your beliefs because you have presented your personal experiences and beliefs about god and spirituality as reason to disagree with others on this thread.

I know you wish that's what has gone here, but it isn't. People were asking me personal questions that had nothing to do with the debate. This is not a proper subject for debate.

If you do not want others to question and critique your personal beliefs then don't bring them up to make a point on a debate forum. [/ quote]

Are you a moderator? Do you wish to file a complaint?

I have questioned your god beliefs and experiences because you have presented your god beliefs and experiences as reason/evidence in a debate. Do you think its unfair or rude to question the claims and statements of others on a public debate forum?

I have not presented them as evidence at all. You are mistaken.

You have suspiciously misrepresented the OP. Nowhere in the OP do i see any mention of "disproving god". Proofs are only valid in math, alcohol, and strict logic. The OP specifically mentions "concluding" and "reasonable to think" which implies he is not presenting a proof or "proving". It appears to me that you have twisted the words and claimed that the OP is making a proof or "proving". That is an error on your part.

I disagree. Saying that God exists only in the mind is the same as saying God cannot exist outside the mind. It is a negative that cannot be proven.

And yes, there is strong evidence and reason to believe that gods only exist in the minds of believers and not objectively. Ironically, your claims of gnosis and unverifiable, unevidenced god experiences lend support to that very idea.

This is simply your personal opinion. It is meaningless within the context of the debate.

[scourge99]

You have made this thread about your beliefs because you have presented your personal experiences and beliefs about god and spirituality as reason to disagree with others on this thread.

People were asking me personal questions that had nothing to do with the debate. This is not a proper subject for debate.

I'm confident readers can review the thread themselves.

And in either case, you obliged them with claims and statements on a public debate forum . Are you requesting special treatment when it comes to the claims and statements you make on this debate forum?

If you do not want others to question and critique your personal beliefs then don't bring them up to make a point on a debate forum.

Are you a moderator? Do you wish to file a complaint?

I have nothing to complain to a moderator about.

What I have done is point out how you have offered nothing of substance to support your claims about spirituality and "god". What you have done is presented arguments strikingly similar to quacks and scammers:
1) you expect us to take your word for it based on anecdotes and your personal testimony.
2) you make blanket accusations of scientism and close mindedness against skeptics and detractors.
3) you claim to have secret knowledge and methods (gnosis).
4) you use vague and obtuse explanations (E.G., (a) god is love. (b) The transcendence of God is a mystery to us and cannot be known by us. But the aspect of God that actually IS nature is not "supernatural" at all.)

These problems can be easily remedied if you offered some means to support your claims and statements (or concede that it cannot be done) rather than spending your time arguing about proper etiquette in a public debate forum. I hold out a little hope that maybe you'll address these problems openly and directly. Then again, I distinctly remember how you deflated your last encounter with someone who disagreed with you: This sounds like a temper tantrum. Are you sure you're mature enough to engage in serious debate? You sound very young. Feelings can get bruised here.

I have questioned your god beliefs and experiences because you have presented your god beliefs and experiences as reason/evidence in a debate. Do you think its unfair or rude to question the claims and statements of others on a public debate forum?

I have not presented them as evidence at all. You are mistaken.

Well i did say reason/evidence. But please inform me of what you have presented them as if not evidence or reason.

You have suspiciously misrepresented the OP. Nowhere in the OP do i see any mention of "disproving god". Proofs are only valid in math, alcohol, and strict logic. The OP specifically mentions "concluding" and "reasonable to think" which implies he is not presenting a proof or "proving". It appears to me that you have twisted the words and claimed that the OP is making a proof or "proving". That is an error on your part.

I disagree. Saying that God exists only in the mind is the same as saying God cannot exist outside the mind. It is a negative that cannot be proven.

Until we can come to an agreement on the type of claim being made I don't see how this can go any further. What the OP actually appears to be saying is that its "reasonable to conclude X". You seem to keep trying to twist the words into some kind of claim of absolute certainty or proof.

And yes, there is strong evidence and reason to believe that gods only exist in the minds of believers and not objectively. Ironically, your claims of gnosis and unverifiable, unevidenced god experiences lend support to that very idea.

This is simply your personal opinion. It is meaningless within the context of the debate.

Specifically, which part of my statement do you wish for me to support with evidence or elaborate upon?

[bernee51]

I would suggest that the major monotheist based religions do not encourage the sought of mysticism of which you speak. In fact, historically, they have actively discouraged it to the point of persecution.

The leadership in these religions fear it because it reflects an independent spirit. Yet in all three religions a strong mystical tradition has developed. The mystical spirit cannot always be suppressed. My favorite Christian mystic is Meister Eckhart (13th-14tb centuries). He was tried as a heretic but died before a verdict was rendered. He was cleared sometime during the 20th century.

I have read some of Eckhart. I first came across him in Huxley's Perennial Philosophy

Authentic transformation is not a matter of belief but of the (figurative) death of the believer; not a matter of translating the world but of transforming the world; not a matter of finding solace but of finding infinity on the other side of death. The self is not made content; the self is made toast.

Well, I think we all have beliefs. Some beliefs lead us closer to the goal while others lead us astray. In the end, however, they must be relinquished if we are to see the actual beyond our preconceptions. Afterward we will describe it within the context of our culture or in defiance of that culture. As time goes by, this becomes less important. I read somewhere about a Shinto priest, who when asked about his theology replied: "We have no theology. We dance."

I don't know what happens after we die. But I'm interested in what you say here. Perhaps you could explain it to me in more detail.

AFAIK after we die we rot.

The death of which I spoke was figurative. It is the death of the sense of the individual self. Once the illusion of selfhood is transcended, there is no longer a translation of the world to bring meaning and purpose, the world itself is transformed...or rather the view of it when seen with an understanding of the nature of being. The infinity beyond the death of the self is pure awareness. Awareness is the same in you and I, in my forbears and yours, and in our descendents - and is the only 'reality'. The only thing that differs is how the awareness manifests in the individual. And that is where the limitations begin.

Kayky:

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

That question makes no sense.

This is simply a reference to Panentheism. This is not something I know to be true, but it makes sense to me. If the universe is God coming into form, it follows that there is some aspect of God from which this form emanates. I think of this as the transcendence of God--something we cannot know or experience because we are part of the physical universe. It's all philosophical speculation, but I like it.

And I know of no need or reason for such a metaphysic.

Well, in human terms it might appear so. But there is no true separation of anything. Every atom of the universe vibrates with the energy of God. All is one in God. This, of course, is expressing it in religious terms. You would probably choose a different vocabulary.

I wouldn't use the word god...otherwise i agree entirely.

At all levels of existence, the physical - we are the same atoms and molecules as every other aspect of existence, the biological - we are part of the biosphere, without it we would not be here, the spiritual - all of existence has structure and process (which is how I define spirit).

By the way, Bernee, I saw it on the news this morning. The dingo did it.

it was always the dingo.

[playhavock]

Kayky, you still have not answered my question: Will you alow yourself the possiblity that (G) is in your brain only?

Kayky, you have not shown my premices to be invalad.
Kayky, you have shown that you do not understand the thrust or type of my augument. It is not to show a negitive - no one can do this as far as I know, it is impossible (it might not be, but it seems to be so) I have shown (If my premices are sound) a reasion to conclud that my conclusion is correct.
The type of debate is persanary - within the confines of informal logic, the debate itself is consedered a problititistic type of augmentaion - we look at the evedance and suport of the premices and see if they are true, we look at where the conclsuion leads from there - and we come to what is most problisticly the correct conclsuion. The limit of (most but not all) debate is that you can not have a full conclusion, this is why I outlined that this is my theory, define my aumentation and my conclusion. Nothing I have said other then the bits when I am funny has any emotional element attached. I am pointing out the logical fallacys of your statments.

On a side note, I was thinking about this topic last night and I recalled that you thought I was being humours when I sugested making new words - I was not. If you feel that our languge is limited then make new words to explain things that are currently not explained. This will be benfical to the rest of us as we will now have new words to utlise to explain things. However, I do not think you will be able to since the new word would be to define something that you have admited is undefinible - the experance itself can not be "put into words" so you could name it I dont know , umm - "walawallywoozis" but the defntion of the word is "unable to put into words" and thus nonfunctional as a word - however, do not let that stop you from sugesting new words and giving the defnetions.