Debate me one on one

[Swami]

I am willing to debate one on one on the topic of religious experience and conversion. I accept that that religious experience is able to convert materialists/atheists to religion (or questioning materialism). I have the evidence for this.

Post: each person gets 2 posts

Does any Hardline materialist and atheists want to disagree with my evidence? You don't believe experience can convert??

[Divine Insight]

The real question for me is if experience has the power to convert, then why have some skeptics here taken issue with my asking them to experience? They should first experience before being critical, and then they can convert from atheism.

What are you asking them to experience? God?

And besides who do you think you are kidding at this point?

I am recommending for all to experience the same thing that scientists are after, consciousness. The only difference is that the experience is of consciousness in its pure form or state. I find that all matter in its purest form, that is, without any mental constructs, without the filter of our senses, are all manifestations of consciousness . Call this realization God.

Why call it realization of God? Why not just call it realization of consciousness?

You have totally avoided the facts that I have presented.

Some people claim to have had religious experience that confirmed to them there there is no Hell. Other people claim to have had religious experience where they were given a tour of Hell and were assured that it is real.

So what do you do now?

You keep saying I am totally avoiding the facts, but I can also say that you're completely avoiding my point. I can explain all of this to you in the most reasonable terms and most would still not completely believe or understand what I'm saying. This is the limitations of "rhetoric" in debate. This is why I recommend understanding my point through 'practical' knowledge (gained from experience). This will answer all of your objections.

I am willing to engage you in 2 posts in the head-to-head section, to further prove my point that mystical or religious experience can convince you to leave your atheism.

Why insist on the head-to-head section? Especially when it's even unclear what your position is. If your position is that some atheists can be converted to religion via having some sort of experience, I've already agreed with that.

You claim that you can answer all of my objections in less than 2 posts, yet you've had more posts than that in this thread and you still haven't answered anything.

If one person who has an experience comes away convinced that there is no hell, and another person who has an experience comes away convinced that they had seen hell first hand, who's experience should we accept as being valid evidence for or against the existence of Hell?

You still haven't even answered that extremely simple question.

Apparently you have no answer.

[Swami]

Why call it realization of God? Why not just call it realization of consciousness?

The concept of the highest God in Hinduism (there are millions of gods but the highest/ultimate is Brahman) has to do with the level of reality instead of a personal being. Brahman is the ultimate reality. In Hindu thought, this most fundamental part of reality has 3 main characteristics: existence, bliss, and "consciousness" (in that it possesses awareness). Therefore reaching god is nothing more than discovering the most fundamental part of reality - reality in its true form.

Why insist on the head-to-head section? Especially when it's even unclear what your position is. If your position is that some atheists can be converted to religion via having some sort of experience, I've already agreed with that.

You claim that you can answer all of my objections in less than 2 posts, yet you've had more posts than that in this thread and you still haven't answered anything.

If one person who has an experience comes away convinced that there is no hell, and another person who has an experience comes away convinced that they had seen hell first hand, who's experience should we accept as being valid evidence for or against the existence of Hell?

You still haven't even answered that extremely simple question.

Apparently you have no answer.

Having the experience can answer a lot of the questions you keep bringing up. I still stand by my claim.

[Divine Insight]

Why call it realization of God? Why not just call it realization of consciousness?

The concept of the highest God in Hinduism (there are millions of gods but the highest/ultimate is Brahman) has to do with the level of reality instead of a personal being. Brahman is the ultimate reality. In Hindu thought, this most fundamental part of reality has 3 main characteristics: existence, bliss, and "consciousness" (in that it possesses awareness). Therefore reaching god is nothing more than discovering the most fundamental part of reality - reality in its true form.

Yes, I understand the Hindu idea of God. That doesn't make the idea true.

Why insist on the head-to-head section? Especially when it's even unclear what your position is. If your position is that some atheists can be converted to religion via having some sort of experience, I've already agreed with that.

You claim that you can answer all of my objections in less than 2 posts, yet you've had more posts than that in this thread and you still haven't answered anything.

If one person who has an experience comes away convinced that there is no hell, and another person who has an experience comes away convinced that they had seen hell first hand, who's experience should we accept as being valid evidence for or against the existence of Hell?

You still haven't even answered that extremely simple question.

Apparently you have no answer.

Having the experience can answer a lot of the questions you keep bringing up. I still stand by my claim.

I've already experienced consciousness. So allowing the Hindu superstition that consciousness is "God" then I have already experience "God" by that definition. So, by that definition, according to Hindu theology I'm not an atheist with respect to their God.

In fact, I don't even claim to be an "atheist". As Zzyzx would put it, I'm actually an Ignostic. Ignostic means that people who argue for gods don't have meaningful definitions for the term God.

You seem to equate consciousness with God. Well duh? I'm not going to deny the existence of consciousness. So if you define that consciousness is God then how can I argue with that? The only thing I could argue with is that your use of the term "God" to replace the term consciousness seems rather silly. Why not just call consciousness consciousness? It already has a word assigned to it.

Some people define God as Love. Well duh? If God is love then I must be God.

This just becomes nothing more than semantic games with a three-letter word called "God".

If I define my dog as God does that make my dog God? By definition evidently so.

[Swami]

I've already experienced consciousness. So allowing the Hindu superstition that consciousness is "God" then I have already experience "God" by that definition. So, by that definition, according to Hindu theology I'm not an atheist with respect to their God.

In fact, I don't even claim to be an "atheist". As Zzyzx would put it, I'm actually an Ignostic. Ignostic means that people who argue for gods don't have meaningful definitions for the term God.

You seem to equate consciousness with God. Well duh? I'm not going to deny the existence of consciousness. So if you define that consciousness is God then how can I argue with that? The only thing I could argue with is that your use of the term "God" to replace the term consciousness seems rather silly. Why not just call consciousness consciousness? It already has a word assigned to it.

There are different levels of consciousness. The level that we tend to experience in association to our mind and body is called the waking state. In contrast, God level consciousness is a consciousness in its pure form - independent of mind and body. If you break down everything in the Universe to its most fundamental level, you will find this consciousness. You can't get beyond it. It exists everywhere; it is part of everything. This type is fullest (or Universal) expression of consciousness.

The type of consciousness that you and Western scientists know of is a limited expression - the individual expression.

[William]

Razorsedge : I find that all matter in its purest form, that is, without any mental constructs, without the filter of our senses, are all manifestations of consciousness . Call this realization God.

Divine Insight: Why call it realization of God? Why not just call it realization of consciousness?

William: I think that realization of consciousness is a matter of consciousness being able to acknowledge it exists.
The sense that overall, GOD is consciousness=we are aspects of GOD is what Razorsedge is specifically eluding to.

If it is really the case, then one can expect the next phase of individuate experience will have the individual dealing with that.
I think it is more prudent to enter into that at least assured that being an aspect of GOD (consciousness) is not a 'bad' thing.
Preparation would therefore be in order.
Sure - one can indeed argue that all the preparation would not matter IF there is not next phase...and this would be correct of course. But it would be besides the point. It is not as if someone will be saying "I told you so" if there is no such thing as Afterlife.

[Divine Insight]

There are different levels of consciousness. The level that we tend to experience in association to our mind and body is called the waking state. In contrast, God level consciousness is a consciousness in its pure form - independent of mind and body. If you break down everything in the Universe to its most fundamental level, you will find this consciousness. You can't get beyond it. It exists everywhere; it is part of everything. This type is fullest (or Universal) expression of consciousness.

The type of consciousness that you and Western scientists know of is a limited expression - the individual expression.

This is fine and dandy as arm-chair philosophy. But the things you are claiming have not been shown to be true, yet you state them as though they are confirmed facts.

For example you say:

If you break down everything in the Universe to its most fundamental level, you will find this consciousness. You can't get beyond it. It exists everywhere; it is part of everything. This type is fullest (or Universal) expression of consciousness.

That's an interesting philosophical idea. But that's all it amounts to. Yet you state it as though it's a confirmed fact of reality.

Yes, I know that this is Eastern Philosophy. But that is indeed precisely what it is. It's really not much different from the philosophical idea of Solipsism. It's an idea that can neither be demonstrated to be true, nor can it be shown to be false.

So yes, the Hindu philosophical "stab" at imagining a basis for consciousness is on the same level as the idea of Solipsism. It may or may not be true.

But that isn't what you are saying. In your quote above you are claiming that if we break the universe down to its most fundamental level we will find consciousness, and that we can't get beyond it, it's everywhere.

That is a philosophical idea. Period. It's not a demonstrable truth. And a human meditating isn't going to be able to discern whether or not this idea is true either. A human cannot escape their physical brain to experience pure consciousness devoid of a brain.

So your claim that meditation can somehow lead someone to this conclusion is simply false. At best all you can do is sit and quietly experience being a physical brain. You can't go beyond that.

I've already shown this to be the case. If you are in a state of meditation and I come up and violently shake your body while screaming at you, you will instantly awaken from whatever it was you had been imagining. In other words, if you thought you were existing anywhere else other than in your physical brain, then you are mistaken.

I've also further confirmed this by stating the known truth that if you go out in the woods and sit on a log and start to meditate, there will come a time when you will absolutely need to come out of your meditative state and eat something. And if you refuse to do this you will soon quit meditating. You will either pass out, or die, or do both.

In other words, the idea that a state of meditation demonstrates a separate world of consciousness that is not dependent upon the physical world is clearly false. To the contrary, the human condition demands that just the opposite must be true. If you don't eat you'll lose consciousness. So consciousness is dependent upon an energy source. Consciousness is the result of physical activity in the brain.

In truth, scientists are actually making great strides in understanding the physical nature of consciousness. There's a lot of hoopla about consciousness being the "hard problem" and because consciousness is a subjective experience it may forever be beyond the realm of objective science. But those are ideals that proponents of non-physical consciousness push to keep their agenda afloat.

In truth, scientists are actually coming up with credible hypotheses to explain physical consciousness. In fact, much of this is coming from the study of A.I. and what is required to construct a mind from a physical computing machine.

I personally feel very confident that scientists will indeed explain how consciousness works in the not-to-distant future. In fact, some scientists may have actually explained it already and just haven't yet been recognized for their discovery. Marvin Minsky, for example, may have already explained how consciousness arises in a complex neural network. Perhaps his realization simply hasn't yet been recognized to be correct by the scientific community.

This won't be the first time that scientific discoveries haven't been recognized in a timely fashion. It may be that some decades after Marvin Minsky passes on the scientific community will belatedly recognize that he was right after all.

So the problem of physical consciousness may have already been discovered and explained, and we just aren't yet aware of it.

[Swami]

This is fine and dandy as arm-chair philosophy. But the things you are claiming have not been shown to be true, yet you state them as though they are confirmed facts.

I believe they are proven and the reason it's not accepted as such is because of a cultural and philosophical barrier. The West and East and their respective philosophies did not originate together so therefore they were developed on their own terms. The Western scientists simply went with whatever that would emerged from Western philosophy. But this alone does not prove that the Eastern philosophy and approach is wrong. It just means that it had it's own development.

To argue or ignore my methods as a means for truth just because they are "different" is the height of cultural intolerance and bias. Meditation is a tool and technology that can be used to acquire knowledge.

For example you say:

If you break down everything in the Universe to its most fundamental level, you will find this consciousness. You can't get beyond it. It exists everywhere; it is part of everything. This type is fullest (or Universal) expression of consciousness.

That's an interesting philosophical idea. But that's all it amounts to. Yet you state it as though it's a confirmed fact of reality.

Yes, I know that this is Eastern Philosophy. But that is indeed precisely what it is. It's really not much different from the philosophical idea of Solipsism. It's an idea that can neither be demonstrated to be true, nor can it be shown to be false.

So yes, the Hindu philosophical "stab" at imagining a basis for consciousness is on the same level as the idea of Solipsism. It may or may not be true.

But that isn't what you are saying. In your quote above you are claiming that if we break the universe down to its most fundamental level we will find consciousness, and that we can't get beyond it, it's everywhere.

That is a philosophical idea. Period. It's not a demonstrable truth. And a human meditating isn't going to be able to discern whether or not this idea is true either. A human cannot escape their physical brain to experience pure consciousness devoid of a brain.

So your claim that meditation can somehow lead someone to this conclusion is simply false. At best all you can do is sit and quietly experience being a physical brain. You can't go beyond that.

I've already shown this to be the case. If you are in a state of meditation and I come up and violently shake your body while screaming at you, you will instantly awaken from whatever it was you had been imagining. In other words, if you thought you were existing anywhere else other than in your physical brain, then you are mistaken.

I've also further confirmed this by stating the known truth that if you go out in the woods and sit on a log and start to meditate, there will come a time when you will absolutely need to come out of your meditative state and eat something. And if you refuse to do this you will soon quit meditating. You will either pass out, or die, or do both.

In other words, the idea that a state of meditation demonstrates a separate world of consciousness that is not dependent upon the physical world is clearly false. To the contrary, the human condition demands that just the opposite must be true. If you don't eat you'll lose consciousness. So consciousness is dependent upon an energy source. Consciousness is the result of physical activity in the brain.

In truth, scientists are actually making great strides in understanding the physical nature of consciousness. There's a lot of hoopla about consciousness being the "hard problem" and because consciousness is a subjective experience it may forever be beyond the realm of objective science. But those are ideals that proponents of non-physical consciousness push to keep their agenda afloat.

In truth, scientists are actually coming up with credible hypotheses to explain physical consciousness. In fact, much of this is coming from the study of A.I. and what is required to construct a mind from a physical computing machine.

I personally feel very confident that scientists will indeed explain how consciousness works in the not-to-distant future. In fact, some scientists may have actually explained it already and just haven't yet been recognized for their discovery. Marvin Minsky, for example, may have already explained how consciousness arises in a complex neural network. Perhaps his realization simply hasn't yet been recognized to be correct by the scientific community.

This won't be the first time that scientific discoveries haven't been recognized in a timely fashion. It may be that some decades after Marvin Minsky passes on the scientific community will belatedly recognize that he was right after all.

So the problem of physical consciousness may have already been discovered and explained, and we just aren't yet aware of it.

This all goes back to experience of consciousness. My experience using the Eastern approach informs my views on consciousness. When you or Western scientists become more open to alternative methods, then you'll begin to notice how incomplete your views are.

[Divine Insight]

I believe they are proven and the reason it's not accepted as such is because of a cultural and philosophical barrier. The West and East and their respective philosophies did not originate together so therefore they were developed on their own terms. The Western scientists simply went with whatever that would emerged from Western philosophy. But this alone does not prove that the Eastern philosophy and approach is wrong. It just means that it had it's own development.

Do you ever think about how your arguments aren't making sense in light of known reality?

You keep talking about a dichotomy of Eastern and Western cultures like as if all people of the Eastern Culture would be in agreement with your claims. But they most certainly are not. In fact, the Eastern Cultures have indeed embrace the Western Sciences and do not dismiss them as being wrong or misguided philosophy.

To argue or ignore my methods as a means for truth just because they are "different" is the height of cultural intolerance and bias. Meditation is a tool and technology that can be used to acquire knowledge.

Your methods? Sorry Razoredge but meditation is not your method. Meditation has been around for thousands of years. Also even the Dalai Lama openly confesses that there are limitations to the "knowledge" that can be obtained through meditation. And the knowledge he does acknowledge is fundamentally mundane, in other words, even secularists will concede that meditation has secular psychological benefits. Many secularists even agree with the realization that the ego is an illusion. But the ego isn't a physical thing, it's really nothing more than the misguided notion that you are a character you invented in your mind rather than the actual physical human you are. Again, this is knowledge that even secular psychologists can recognize and it doesn't indicated that the human consciousness could exist without the physical brain.

In short, there is simply no way that meditation could be used to provide evidence that consciousness could exist without a physical brain. You can't leave your brain to meditate. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone, or anything, that does not have a physical brain could meditate, or have any consciousness at all.

This all goes back to experience of consciousness. My experience using the Eastern approach informs my views on consciousness. When you or Western scientists become more open to alternative methods, then you'll begin to notice how incomplete your views are.

You are simply wrong. To begin with I wouldn't even consider myself a "Western Scientist". Yes it is true that I was born and raised in a western culture. It's also true that I learned the scientific method of inquiry in western schools. However, for me, it was never a matter of blindly accepting dogma. To the contrary, I either did the experiments for myself to verify the truth of the claims, or I followed through logic and reasoning very carefully until I was convinced of the truth of the claims. In fact, like most physics students I also had a difficult time moving from the Newtonian worldview to Einstein's Relativity. For quite some time I tried very hard to try to save the Newtonian picture of reality by attempting to show how Relativity could be explain using classical physics. Of course, this turned out to be impossible, and I not only eventually saw why time dilation must occur, but I also came to grips with the fact that it has indeed been experimentally observed to be a fact of reality.

You are also wrong about western scientists not being willing to explore alternative methods. In fact, if you believe that this is true, then this is a deep flaw in your argument. I too have explored the Eastern Philosophies. They are indeed quite interesting but the truth is that they don't pan out.

First example, the Eastern philosophical methods have never produced any meaningful results. The Eastern Mystics didn't discover the truth of time dilation. They didn't discover quantum physics. They didn't even discover that E=mc². In fact, you're not going to find a cure for diseases via pure meditation of consciousness either. So they don't produce meaningful results.

Second example, even in terms of pure philosophy they cannot show that their cultural idea of how they view Brahma has any more merit than the philosophical idea of Solipsism. So their methods are so useless that they aren't even able to distinguish themselves from other competing philosophies.

So the Eastern method of investigating reality via pure philosophy using meditation as a tool has basically already revealed itself to be useless.

So it's not that Western scientists aren't willing to look into this "alternate method of inquiry into reality", the truth is that they have already done this and found it to be useless.

That's reality Razorsedge.

Your claim that Western scientists simply refuse to even consider this is just plain false. They have considered it and found it to be useless. At least in term of investigating the true nature of reality.

Is meditation useful for secular psychology? Sure. But that hardly makes it useful as a replacement for Western science in general.

Your claims about what meditation can show to be true are false.
Your claims about what Western Scientists refuse to do are false.

You are simply making claims that have already been shown to be false long before you have even made them.

Meditation is not "your method", and your accusations against Western Scientists have been made by people long before you (probably even before you were even born), and they have already been debunked.

[William]

Will-i-am: From my own perspective on the argument regarding 'Western' and 'Eastern' thinking, Divine Insight is completely correct in all things related to this - the Physical Universe (the PU) and the human experience therein.

GOD is of the metaphysical, and while Divine Insight most obviously does not believe the metaphysical actually exists, Divine Insight is not concerned with that, even if it turns out to be true.

Divine Insight deals with The Moment, and at The Moment, we are all co-sharing an experience of a particular aspect of "The Mind Of GOD" (MOG) which we agree is "The Physical Universe".

Divine Insight does not require that we all acknowledge we are in the MOG because the NATURE of the PU shows us clearly that - if the MOG actually IS a thing the PU is within, then GOD is well hidden - so well hidden - that it is impossible to prove otherwise. Indeed the nature of the PU is what makes it impossible.

Theists know things about the Metaphysical Universe, (MU) and depending as to what level the theist is at, determines the details through the type of experiences that Razorsedge is arguing are relevant to the PU.

~The MU is far vaster than the PU, and also far more busier.~

Divine Insight deals with the idea that when he departs the PU and IF it turns out that the MU is then experienced by Divine Insight, then Divine Insight deals with that in the usual manner. ~In The Moment.~

If one looks at Human History, and even long, long before that, one can clearly map out what Consciousness (aka GOD) (CakaG) has been up to in the PU, and specifically why Human Bodies developed the way they have.


I write of these things 'as if' the MU actually exists because my own personal experience allows me to do so. That is why I am a 'Theist'.

Divine Insight writes of AI and truth told, the development of beings made in Humankind's Image, is no accident, but a purposeful push by the CakaG for that very purpose.
There is a whole PU to explore and physically interact with, and CakaG -obviously - wants to do so.

The reason WHY it is argued by Razorsedge that the inclusion of the use of Eastern Philosophy is important to the trans-humanist process currently underway, is not understood as reasonable to the trans-humanist process.

"Why does the MU have to have anything to do with human ability to create technology built to explore the PU?
How does knowledge of the existence of the MU help the process of Trans-Humanism in the PU?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 19 by William]

Just for the record, I never took any of the positions you have claimed I had taken. Neither do I believe the things you claim I believe. Please speak for yourself and stop making false claims about me.