Which god is God?

[SallyF]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

[Swami]

[Replying to post 116 by Razorsedge]

It is objective in that you remove the mind/body from the picture. Meditation is a reliable approach to reach that state. This is one reason why meditation should be part of the scientific method when it comes to revealing the true nature of consciousness.

The mind is the ONLY thing in "the picture".

Meditation is a practice where an individual uses a technique " such as mindfulness, or focusing their mind on a particular object, thought or activity " to train attention and awareness, and achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm and stable state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation#Criticisms

It's ALL to do with what's inside the head of the meditator.

The meditator may BELIEVE and even CLAIM they reach a different level of "reality", but in reality, they are only having thoughts inside their own heads that do nothing to determine if the possibly fictional Jesus character was sired by the Holy Ghost on the Blessed Virgin Mary and is therefore "God", for example.


And I really hope the scientific community does not opt for what their minds tell them during meditation We'll have them squabbling like folks do here over what their faith has told them "God" said.

But perhaps it's what you don't wear and how you hold your hand that makes the difference in objectively determining realities

In post 116, I already gave a definition of meditation that does not involve the mind. Both of our definitions are correct for the simple fact that meditation is practiced in many different ways, especially across different cultures. Some forms involve the mind like when you focus on a object in your mind (a flower, compassion, a deity) and other forms involve no object at all.

Those in the West practice a more secularized version, while those in the East have an entire spiritual/metaphysical philosophy to go with the practice.

[Zzyzx]

.

Watch a courtroom documentary sometime. Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but in itself that's not nearly enough for an acquittal. The defense does not simply reiterate their belief that the prosecution has not demonstrated its case; they have to argue their own case. They have to explain why the prosecution's case is weak, why the defense has a better explanation for the facts, etc.

It might shock you to learn that in a courtroom setting, Christianity would lose. It's main, or should I say, only piece of quote unquote evidence is the Bible,

That's a bit misleading. What we call "the Bible" for brevity and convention's sake is not a single book by a single author; it's dozens of books by dozens of authors. [/quote]
The Bible is an anthology " defined as a book that has a large collection of writings in similar form, from a similar time, or about a similar subject manner, but by various authors. https://www.yourdictionary.com/anthology

Identity of Bible writers is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians. Their sources of information are uncertain (at best). It cannot be determined who, if any, actually / personally witnessed the conversations and events they describe. Much can be attributed to church tradition, folklore, legend, fable, moralistic tale, religion promotion propaganda.

Regarding Watch a courtroom documentary sometime: It might be prudent to avoid basing ones decisions and positions on watching television shows.

And in many cases (the Chronicles, the Gospels, the book of Acts, and even Genesis) large portions of the narrative are confirmed through secondary sources like the writings of ancient historians, and/or archaeological findings.

Large portions confirmed? Creation? Garden of Eden? Adam and Eve? Noahs flood? Johanna and the fish? Virgin birth? Talking donkeys and snakes? Divinity of Jesus? Miracles?

That a few mentioned people, places and events is NOT indication that a work is non-fiction. Mention of Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Savannah, and Civil War battles does NOT indicate that Gone with the wind was a true story.

Many fiction writers include mention of real people, places, and events in their fictional stories.

In a few cases those findings confirm what were previously considered "legend" because previously they were known only in Scripture (the Hittite nation; the reign or "house" of King David; Hezekiah's water tunnel; the considerable authority of Pontius Pilate; etc.). That puts "the Bible" in the middle of what an apologist friend of mine calls the "web of historicity." In other words there are no sharp lines to be drawn between the Bible and much well-documented ancient Near Eastern history.

I see a sharp line between the Bible and much well-documented ancient Near Eastern history " claims of supernatural characters and events.

Have any supernatural / miracle events of the Bible been historically confirmed?

Even so, an apologist in our courtroom scenario could call on all sorts of expert scholarly "witnesses" to attest to the general reliability of the New Testament, along with the basic historical facts concerning: the crucifixion of Christ; his disappearance from the tomb; the subsequently very rapid, remarkable rise of the early church in Jerusalem,

If very rapid, remarkable rise of Christianity is evidence of the reliability of the NT, then the very rapid, remarkable rise of Latter Day Saints is evidence of the reliability of the Book of Mormon. And, the rapid rise of Islam is evidence of the reliability of the Koran.

Agreed?

the very place where Christ was publicly crucified; and the conversion account of Saul of Tarsus/Paul the Apostle, who at one point spearheaded the effort to forcibly stop the Christian movement and later was martyred for his faith in Jesus.

Is there verifiable evidence to support the tale of Paul/Sauls conversion from anti- to pro-Christian? Or, is the evidence restricted to Bible tales?

My reference to the courtroom analogy of presumption of innocence/burden of proof was only meant to underscore that the burden of proof in our debate situation does not lie solely on the "prosecution" (Christians) to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, but that the "defense" (atheists or skeptics) bears a certain burden of their own, to show why the Christian arguments fail to warrant belief.

In reasoned discussion and debate, burden of proof is upon those making the claim.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Those who make unverifiable claims often attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding that others prove them wrong. Doing so is a disreputable debate tactic. Anyone can tell a big lie and demand that it be accepted unless it can be proved false " to a gullible and naive audience.

So you're correct to point out that there are no longer any live witnesses available to attest that they have seen, for example, Jesus Christ appearing to them after being crucified. But that doesn't mean a strong case cannot be made for the resurrection. While the resurrection cannot be empirically verified, I believe it can be confirmed as the best explanation of the relevant historical facts.

Kindly present evidence to CONFIRM that resurrection is the best explanation of the relevant historical facts " and identify the historical FACTS to which this refers.

There are unverified TALES of an empty tomb, unverified TALES of angels announcing the departure of the corpus, unverified TALES of people seeing the deceased alive and well.

An empty tomb does NOT indicate that the deceased came back to life and left. Adding angels does not increase credibility. Claims of seeing a deceased are common (and are generally not accepted as verbatim truth).

[Zzyzx]

.

You also keep trying to draw people of my belief into debates, but I won't fall for that trap.

Imagine that, trying to trap someone into debate " on a debate site.

Many would prefer to just pontificate about their personal beliefs and offer testimonials " on a debate site.

Debate = endless excuses to not accept someone's position.

A more rational definition of debate = a discussion about a subject on which people have different views

Those who have difficulty presenting their views in a convincing manner may option to criticize the debate rather than become convincing (if they have anything worthy of presentation).

On many occasions I've stated to not simply go by what I say but to experience it for yourself.

That is NOT debate. This IS a debate site.

Try doing things my way say those who are not willing to try something other than their way.

To Christians attempting to use that argument: Try being a Muslim for a while and see how that affects your opinions.

Sometimes I do go into more details and reasons behind my belief but when I see the person starts rejecting even that (just as you and Sally have done) then I respectfully remind them that they should experience for themselves.

Is it necessary for people to experience drowning for themselves in order to evaluate its desirability?

In my experience, I've found many have been convinced of my worldview by "experiencing" it as opposed to debating it.

Opinion noted. It would seem sensible for those who prefer to avoid debate to " avoid debate sties.

So the real question is why wouldn't you want to experience it for yourself if you're really seeking truth?

I am not inclined to experience for myself all the suggestions available. Instead, I have optioned to experience real life without following pie-in-the-sky suggestions by anonymous internet posters OR religion promoters.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 117 by SallyF]

I'm a longtime practitioner of meditation. Not once has anything like Razorsedge says, ever happened.

Earlier I claimed that meditation can lead to a state that shows that the true nature of consciousness is boundless, formless, and aware. You disagreed with me. Here is clear scientific documentation that shows otherwise:

Fifty-two college students who practiced the TM technique for a few months to over 8 years were asked to describe their deepest experiences during TM practice. They were asked to imagine that they were describing this state to someone who did not meditate. All of their reports were of a state where thinking, feeling, and individual intention were missing, but Self-awareness remained. A content analysis of their descriptions yielded three themes that were common to all reports"absence of time, space, and body sense.22 Time, space, and body sense make up the framework that gives meaning to waking experience.

Transcendental experiences during meditation practice
Article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - March 2014
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12316 - Source: PubMed Frederick Travis
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... obvUo4PFTm

There have also been empirical studies of what have been termed nonlocal aspects of human consciousness associated with meditation practice. During or as a result of meditation, people report experiences of perceiving information that does not appear limited to the typical five senses or seems to extend across space and time, such as precognition, clairvoyance, and mind-matter interactions (described as siddhis in the Hindu yogic traditions) [68]. While controversial, these studies suggest that a history of meditation practice increases the likelihood that laboratory measures of these extended forms of perception will be observed [69"71], indicating that there may be veridical elements of the subjective reports by meditators of timelessness, boundarilessness, and inexplicable perceptual phenomena.

It is possible that these experiences of self-transcendence (defined as the extent to which individuals conceive themselves as integral parts of the universe as a whole [72]), are active ingredients in contemplative practices. Philosophers have proposed that meditation might engender a transformation from a body/ego-based self-identity to a world/universe-centered experience of self not tied to the local body or limited to the self-narrative of the individual practitioner [73]. Some empirical evidence is beginning to emerge supporting this idea.

Future directions in meditation research: Recommendations for expanding the field of contemplative science
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0205740

Sally and Riko,
This is the pure conscious state clearly defined:

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who brought the TM technique to the West, described pure consciousness in this way: The state of Being is one of pure consciousness, completely out of the field of relativity; there is no world of the senses or of objects, no trace of sensory activity, no trace of mental activity. There is no trinity of thinker, thinking process and thought, doer, process of doing and action; experiencer, process of experiencing and object of experience. The state of transcendental Unity of life, or pure consciousness, is completely free from all trace of duality.9

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... obvUo4PFTm

These articles support the following:
- All of this shows that pure conscious state is indeed an objective state ...it involves no mental activity.
- The true nature of consciousness (consciousness isolated from mind/body as achieved through meditation) is boundless, formless, and pure awareness.

AS I mentioned before, discovering the true nature of consciousness is the first step to discovering God. When you follow consciousness to its fullest expression, you come to the realization that it is the source of all reality (it is God in that sense). I've gathered all of this from years of meditative experience.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 124 by Razorsedge]

Earlier I claimed that meditation can lead to a state that shows that the true nature of consciousness is boundless, formless, and aware. You disagreed with me. Here is clear scientific documentation that shows otherwise:

Did I need to say "Not once has anything like Razorsedge says, ever happened to me"?

A content analysis of their descriptions yielded three themes that were common to all reports"absence of time, space, and body sense.

Has never happened to me.

During or as a result of meditation, people report experiences of perceiving information that does not appear limited to the typical five senses or seems to extend across space and time, such as precognition, clairvoyance, and mind-matter interactions

Practise meditation yourself and leave a $1 donation to me on my Paypal. Just one dollar. As a test of your claims, I am not going to tell you what my Paypal address is.

I've done challenges like this before on this site, this is at least the third time, and I fully expect it to go untried. The last challenge I gave was to ask for the password to a document I had uploaded to Google Drive, and to reproduce its contents. Last I checked, no-one had even tried to access the document.

These articles support the following:
- All of this shows that pure conscious state is indeed an objective state - it involves no mental activity.
- The true nature of consciousness (consciousness isolated from mind/body as achieved through meditation) is boundless, formless, and pure awareness.

And yet my own experience contradicts what you claim vicariously through these articles. This looks to me to be just like the other Christians who say "Pray to God and he'll respond", which ignores that I was once a Christian who prayed to God all the time and never got a response.
At this point in this specific discussion, it doesn't matter how many scientific articles you link to to support your point. I've already done the research and my research points in the opposite direction. Now unless you'd care to point out a flaw in my methodology...? (which would be very hard for you to do, since is there an established objective way to go about meditation?)

[Swami]

[Replying to post 125 by rikuoamero]
Your experience does not take away from my experience. Already in our short time of conversation, I notice a few things that would restrict your experience.

I question if you want to learn how I used meditation to experience, assuming you want to experience at all. You seem so content in proclaiming that you experienced nothing and leaving it at that. Perhaps your anti-religious stance may also play a role. This can influence you in subtle ways and make it harder to really clear your mind and accept whatever that may arise during meditation. Why do you meditate in the first place?

It may help to keep this in mind:

The Difference Between Meditating and Transcending

There is a big difference, however, between quiet reflection, enjoying the beauty of nature, and praying, compared to the experience of transcending. Transcending means to go beyond. When we practice the meditation technique of Transcendental Meditation, we are going beyond the surface level of our thinking process where all thinking, even quiet reflection, takes place. We transcend all thought and experience a state of no thought"the field pure consciousness, Being or transcendence.

http://enlightenmentforeveryone.com/201 ... nscending/

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 125 by rikuoamero]
Your experience does not take away from my experience. Already in our short time of conversation, I notice a few things that would restrict your experience.

This reveals that problem of basing claims on experience. You claim rikuoamero's experience doesn't invalidate your experience, but then turn around and claim that your experience invalidates rikuoamero's.


You set yourself up as the expert on meditation and then reject any experience that doesn't match your self appointed expert position.


I can equally claim that your experience is invalid because it has caused you to accept whatever belief it is that I disagree with. Using your scheme, I could say that only my belief is valid and any experience that leads to disagreement with my position is based on a false attempt to experience what I have experienced.


If you claim that experience leads to truth, you must agree that all experiences are of equal value. I suspect you will disagree with this based on the purely arbitrary claim that your experience is better.



Tcg

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 126 by Razorsedge]

Your experience does not take away from my experience. Already in our short time of conversation, I notice a few things that would restrict your experience.

But your experience would take away from mine...?

I question if you want to learn how I used meditation to experience,

I've been meditating for twenty years. I honestly don't think I've been doing it "wrong" this whole time.

assuming you want to experience at all.

My desires play no part in this.

You seem so content in proclaiming that you experienced nothing and leaving it at that.

Just as you are content in proclaiming that you experienced something. Is it wrong for me to say that I experienced nothing? Am I automatically doing something wrong if I say I experienced nothing, is that the incorrect answer?

Perhaps your anti-religious stance may also play a role.

Does your pro-religious stance play a role in what you say you experience? Why this snide insinuation that I am subconsciously affecting what it is I experience/don't experience, but all the while you don't ask yourself the same thing?

This can influence you in subtle ways and make it harder to really clear your mind and accept whatever that may arise during meditation.

Dude, you know nothing at all about me. You know nothing about how it is I practice meditation, however you're so gosh darned sure I'm doing it wrong!

Why do you meditate in the first place?

Same reason(s) as anyone else, I'd suspect.

It may help to keep this in mind:

Ah. I knew it. I was doing it wrong. Wow, I never would have guessed that was the kind of answer I'd get from you /sarcmarc

[rikuoamero]

As an aside, I just checked my Paypal. As I fully expected...no incoming payments, whether $1 or other amounts.
It always tickles me that people like razorsedge or tam will claim to have a superior insight into the inner workings of the universe, or communication with an all knowing entity...but when push comes to shove, they can't actually demonstrate any actual knowledge. Even something as simple as a Paypal address.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 125 by rikuoamero]
Your experience does not take away from my experience. Already in our short time of conversation, I notice a few things that would restrict your experience.

This reveals that problem of basing claims on experience. You claim rikuoamero's experience doesn't invalidate your experience, but then turn around and claim that your experience invalidates rikuoamero's.

You set yourself up as the expert on meditation and then reject any experience that doesn't match your self appointed expert position.

I can equally claim that your experience is invalid because it has caused you to accept whatever belief it is that I disagree with. Using your scheme, I could say that only my belief is valid and any experience that leads to disagreement with my position is based on a false attempt to experience what I have experienced.

If you claim that experience leads to truth, you must agree that all experiences are of equal value. I suspect you will disagree with this based on the purely arbitrary claim that your experience is better.


Tcg

I don't believe all experiences are equal. There are experiences that are completely subjective in that they depend on each individuals emotions, thinking, and perspective. There are also experiences that are 'intersubjective' in that anyone can have the same experience even if experienced subjectively. Intersubjective experiences are conducive to verifiability because if the same experience can be had amongst many different people then they should be reporting the same or similar experience when asked. The more patterned, repeatable the experiences are, the more easier they are to verify and work with.

This is precisely what we find with transcendent experiences that come about from meditation. Besides the fact that anyone can have the experience, the way that you cause the experience also separates it from all other experiences and that's because of the meditative approach. Meditation is a very accessible, reliable, and clear approach. Meditation is accessible in that anyone can practice it. You don't need technology and you don't need money. You just need yourself. It is a clear and reliable (but not always easy- practice needed) because there is a clear objective to silence the mind and this reliably leads to a state where you isolate consciousness from mind (awareness without mental input). More importantly, with meditation the experience can be repeated.

The reasons given here are why I am fully confident when I encourage people to experience all of this for themselves. Of course, there are those who say that they meditate and have no experience but the variability in experiences are most likely due to variability in the method used to bring on these experiences. I've already explained that there are many different types or forms of meditation. In Rikuamero's case, I think it's fairly easy to see why his experiences with meditation are different than mine.