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]

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.

A serious spiritual life must be approached with a great deal of maturity and discipline. There is the constant peril of error. But it is possible to know. Mystics call this gnosis. It is not knowledge that can be shared. It must be sought out and experienced for oneself.

Your argument isn't unsound because God can't be proven through the scientific method. It is unsound because the scientific method cannot disprove God. Your premise is a presumption that God does not exist. If the premise is unsound, the argument is unsound.

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that the scientific method is the only way to know if something is real or not. It isn't.

[kayky]

Why bother to overcome it?

To seek the truth. To experience transformation.

Kayky:
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.

The analogy was not meant to prove the existence of God. It was to point out the difficulty that presuppositions present in truly knowing someone or something. Therefore, the analogy is not a false one.

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?

I can only know God to the extent that I have experienced God. During such an experience, God does not tell me what he wants. I know that God has not constructed barriers because I only had to overcome the barriers in my own mind to experience God.

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

It is only irrelevant to you. It is hardly irrelevant to me.

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

How can another person's experience possibly have relevance for you? I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am simply pointing out to you that your argument does not disprove God.

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.

That's not what I mean. If I wasn't a "question everything" kind of person, I would never have had such experiences in the first place. But at some point, you've got to be able to recognize an answer.

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.

As an analogy of what happens on the spiritual path, it works very well.

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

Now you're just nitpicking. I'm using the word imagination here as a synonym for mind.

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.

If a premise refers to something that cannot be either proven or disproven, then the premise fails. Your argument does not disprove the existence of God. If it did, you would be rich and famous by now.

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.

But I am not the one making a claim here. You are. I am not on this thread to prove the existence of God (something that cannot be done empirically), although I have answered questions about why I believe in God. You claim you have disproved the existence of God. I have simply pointed out why you have failed to do so. A flawed premise leads to a flawed argument.

Kayky: I ask you to prove that God does not exist.

Shifting the burdan.

Seriously? How can it be shifting the burden when this is your thread and your claim???

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.

You can say this till the cows come home. That doesn't make it 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)

Really? That's exactly what you are trying to do on this thread!!! You're trying to prove that God does NOT exist. I suggest you watch that video.

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

What could possibly be the purpose of a "study" for something that cannot be empirically proven but only experienced personally?

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 t[hat no matter the relgion all people that can experance this have simular results.

What does this prove? That the brain is active during this experience? And the fact that people of any religion can have this experience only proves that there is no such thing as one true religion.

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)

I'm not surprised. This is not an experience that can simply be manufactured out of thin air. It takes time, discipline--one has to be spiritually ready.

Additionaly with injections we can cause experances.

Drugs can cause all kinds of experiences. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

We do not have to assume - we can KNOW, via science. Reality is wonderfull in that way.

Actually science is quite limited to what it can know about reality. The scientific method can only be applied to what can be observed through the physical senses. But that's not what I'm talking about, is 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 -

This is not about feelings. I don't think the human body and mind could contain a more intense experience than the one I'm talking about. But I appreciate your concern.

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.

I practice meditation or contemplation every day. I do not worry about offending God because God cannot be offended. The Truth has set me free.

Kayky:
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?

What exactly is it that you don't understand? Be more specific.

Kayky:
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?

I can tell from your responses.

Kayky:
I am not talking about love as a human emotion.

....? Questionmark times 99.

This is what I mean by the limits of human language.

Invent new words then.

Funny.

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 ten yourself?

You can suggest it, but that won't make it so.

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.

Again??

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

Okay. Now I see the light.

[JCviggen]

But it is possible to know. Mystics call this gnosis. It is not knowledge that can be shared. It must be sought out and experienced for oneself.

It's just that automatically such a thing becomes indistinguishable from delusion.

There's a wide variety of very different beliefs that some people are convinced of are real. From whatever you are talking about to alien abduction. Lack of evidence is something they have in common, as well as the conviction that there is evidence that "science simply cannot detect" but can be experienced. A dime a dozen such claims.

[kayky]

It's just that automatically such a thing becomes indistinguishable from delusion.

There's a wide variety of very different beliefs that some people are convinced of are real. From whatever you are talking about to alien abduction. Lack of evidence is something they have in common, as well as the conviction that there is evidence that "science simply cannot detect" but can be experienced. A dime a dozen such claims.

This is very true. But I am not discouraged by it. I'm a well-grounded person, and I approach spirituality with serious discipline.

It is a mistake, however, to limit human experience only to that which can be observed through science. Otherwise we would have no need for the arts or religion.

[bernee51]

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.

Similar or same...I would not know unless I spent some time in dialogue with you to ascertain the ‘source’ of your experience. To some extent a non-religious ritual plays a part in my practice – if you call a daily attention to contemplative activities a ‘ritual’.

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.

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. Mysticism is a personal activity, not a communal one, even while it may be practiced within a community.

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.

The attachment to the god concept is, in itself, a barrier to a realization of the nature of being. And as the god concept is a construction of ‘our own making’ I can only but agree with you. The greatest obstacle is the sense of, and attachment to, an individual self. Any religion that professes a salvation theology serves to reinforce the idea of a separate self.
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.

How can you know that it can not be known?

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

That question makes no sense.

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.

Can a creation be separate from its creator?

[scourge99]

It's just that automatically such a thing becomes indistinguishable from delusion.

There's a wide variety of very different beliefs that some people are convinced of are real. From whatever you are talking about to alien abduction. Lack of evidence is something they have in common, as well as the conviction that there is evidence that "science simply cannot detect" but can be experienced. A dime a dozen such claims.

This is very true. But I am not discouraged by it. I'm a well-grounded person, and I approach spirituality with serious discipline. It is a mistake, however, to limit human experience only to that which can be observed through science. Otherwise we would have no need for the arts or religion.

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?

[Mr.Badham]

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.

You didn't explain why it was that you thought your first religion was bunk. I'm interested in understanding how you came to that conclusion.

Rituals are also how people with obsessive compulsive disorders make it through the day. I'm not saying that you have that disorder, but the ritual itself doesn't actually change anything. It comforts and uplifts you. But the comfort and uplifting still only take place in your mind. As you said, the ritual is very ancient and steeped in mystery. So as far as you know for sure it may be nothing like the original. You like ancient and mysterious things, that's why it appeals to you.

Why would God favour one ritual over another? These rituals are not about God, they are for the people involved.

[kayky]

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.

Mysticism is a personal activity, not a communal one, even while it may be practiced within a community.

I think individual practice and communal activity are supportive of each other.

The attachment to the god concept is, in itself, a barrier to a realization of the nature of being. And as the god concept is a construction of ‘our own making’ I can only but agree with you.

I have not found it to be an obstacle, keeping in mind, of course that whatever words we use to explain it will be inadequate. I think, for me, it provides a safety net of sorts. The spiritual path is fraught with peril and can lead to error or excess. For me, being part of a community helps keep my feet firmly planted on the ground.

The greatest obstacle is the sense of, and attachment to, an individual self. Any religion that professes a salvation theology serves to reinforce the idea of a separate self.

You would love Meister Eckhart. Yes, I find the word salvation the most troubling in Christian vocabulary. I almost never use it, preferring instead to think of it as transformation or awakening.

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.

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.

Can a creation be separate from its creator?

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.

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

[kayky]

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

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

[kayky]

You didn't explain why it was that you thought your first religion was bunk. I'm interested in understanding how you came to that conclusion.

I had a traumatic childhood, and spent my early adulthood with a great deal of psychic pain. At the same time, I was raised in a religion that told me that, if I believed the right things and followed the rules, God would bless me and I would be happy. Although I was pious to the nth degree, this never happened. I think when you are dealing with that degree of pain, you reach the point where something's gotta give. It was an angry and fearful time for me, as you can well imagine. It took me years to get past it.

Rituals are also how people with obsessive compulsive disorders make it through the day. I'm not saying that you have that disorder

I do not have the disorder. Partaking of the Eucharist can hardly be compared to compulsive hand washing or stove checking.

the ritual itself doesn't actually change anything. It comforts and uplifts you. But the comfort and uplifting still only take place in your mind.

That's the thing. It actually does change things. And, of course, the transformation occurs in the mind. Where else could it occur?

As you said, the ritual is very ancient and steeped in mystery. So as far as you know for sure it may be nothing like the original. You like ancient and mysterious things, that's why it appeals to you.

Yes. Ancient and mysterious things do appeal to me. They make feel connected to my ancestors--to the human story.

Why would God favour one ritual over another? These rituals are not about God, they are for the people involved.

This is absolutely true. God does not need rituals. People do. These rituals are sacred because the community have declared them to so. There is power in that kind of communal agreement.