God is an Impossibility

[Dontaskme]

VA..you are totally clueless as to what's being discussed here ..which is the metaphysics of Reality.

What do you mean clueless?

I am very familiar with Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Reality and the topic of Ontology.
Metaphysics is an essential topic within Philosophy, but we must understand its limitations.

But you cannot talk ONLY about limitations, to do so only serves to conceal and inhibit real Truth, so its counter-productive and self-defeating leading you further and further away from what you are trying to understand as a philosopher, the true nature of SELF is not found in another person. It's in you and you alone. It's no good saying well he said this and she said that ..NO, its what you are saying that counts, only you know you.

There are no limitations in the absolute freedom to be.

You believe in death, so according to your belief, that is why there is limitation.

But is that true, how can we know limitation without knowing its opposite?

What if dying is waking-up, and waking-up is dying?

When we say we are light beings that is only partially true. Light because that is the state where we perceive things. And then there is also the state of Not being different in potential.

Mysteriously I am all that.

Dying and being born is an appearance within the dream of separation, a.k.a the illusion of duality, space and time.

In truth you are unlimited potential trying on the flavor of limitation, both must go hand in hand through the journey of self discovery.

How is it possible that the universe can be infinite...is like asking how can it be possible the universe is finite?

Logic tells us that Infinity is in finite. Finite is not in Infinity, and yes, its an oxymoron but thats unavoidable.

Switching from being to not being is interesting. We are doing this this "all the time."
To be always and have a universe land on the shore of awareness on and on and on eternally what a nightmare that would actually be. Like never being able to switch the light off.

Light Awareness) is never switched OFF...switching off is when mind is in abeyance like in deep dreamless sleep. Here, awareness is still present, even though there is NO awareness of that presence, it is both aware and unaware simultaneously else you would not be able to wake up and know you are awake.


Hallucination is not taking place in the brain. There is no proof it does. That belief is taken completely on blind faith.

The Hallucination is taking place EVERYHWERE AND NOWHERE HERE NOW.

It's absolutely free uninhibited and unlimited in every waking moment. It's Infinity NOW

.

[-1-]

IMO, you are conflating religion and cults. Religion is nothing more or less than a faith-trust in the goodness of God whatever the surrounding concepts might be. “Spirituality” without the guidance of religion is mindless sentiment. Sure, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion, but it always does something; it acts. It does not merely react. Religion is dynamic!

(VA is irrational so I generally just ignore him.)

No true Scotsman fallacy.

I have encountered dozens of Christians who deny the Christianity of others who also claim to be Christians.

Their argument is that only they follow Christian teachings.

If they all follow Christian teaching, and only one way of following is the right one, then the others are cults.

And since cults are not religion, forms of Christianity is not religion.

This is the basic reason why your argument fails.

Thats A. B. is that religion is not dynamic; human interpretation of the scriptures and human reaction to the teachings in it change. Religion is based on scriptures, and per definition the scriptures dont change. Human interpretations of it change. But the words in the bible or in the Koran dont change. Something that dont change cant by definition be dynamic.

What makes religions seem dynamic are the stupid people who do stupid things differently each time, due to what they see written in the scriptures.

What makes atheism seem stupid is arguments like yours.

I wish you would substantiate your judgment and point out false logic or assumptions in my claim, before you'd call me stupid.

It is one thing to be devoted to a philosophical trend, such as to a religion, but it does not empower you on basis of philosophy to defend your devotion by calling others stupid who oppose your devotion, unless you give reasonable explanations to substantiate your point.

You called me stupid in anger, and I suspect your anger was in part evoked by your inability to find logical problems in my reasoning. If you were able to find logical problems, you would have called me out. But in lack thereof, your anger was your only response, and you called me, simply and without reason or explanation, "stupid".

You may be an excellent theist and believer, but you ain't no philosopher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hallucination is not taking place in the brain. There is no proof it does. That belief is taken completely on blind faith.

What??

Don't simply blabber based on ignorance.

A dead person with a dead brain do not hallucinate.
Therefore hallucination takes place in the living brain.

There are experiments on the difference in brain activity of a person who is hallucinating and when the brain is not hallucinating.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9065318
Seeing visual hallucinations with functional magnetic resonance imaging.

• 
  
  Figure 3. fMRI activation data shown in three axial slices above the anterior–posterior commissure (AC–PC) midline in
  non-hallucinating (upper row) and
  hallucinating patients
  with schizophrenia when listening to dichotic presentations of speech sounds.
  Note the absence of significant activation in the left temporal lobe in the hallucinating patients (p < 0.001, uncorrected).

[Veritas Aequitas]

What makes atheism seem stupid is arguments like yours.

I wish you would substantiate your judgment and point out false logic or assumptions in my claim, before you'd call me stupid.

It is one thing to be devoted to a philosophical trend, such as to a religion, but it does not empower you on basis of philosophy to defend your devotion by calling others stupid who oppose your devotion, unless you give reasonable explanations to substantiate your point.

You called me stupid in anger, and I suspect your anger was in part evoked by your inability to find logical problems in my reasoning. If you were able to find logical problems, you would have called me out. But in lack thereof, your anger was your only response, and you called me, simply and without reason or explanation, "stupid".

You may be an excellent theist and believer, but you ain't no philosopher.

Don't waste your time with 'Reflex.'
I had bad encounters with Reflex's one-liners in another forum.

[Dontaskme]

Hallucination is not taking place in the brain. There is no proof it does. That belief is taken completely on blind faith.

What??

Don't simply blabber based on ignorance.

A dead person with a dead brain do not hallucinate.
Therefore hallucination takes place in the living brain.

There are experiments on the difference in brain activity of a person who is hallucinating and when the brain is not hallucinating.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9065318
Seeing visual hallucinations with functional magnetic resonance imaging.

• 
  
  Figure 3. fMRI activation data shown in three axial slices above the anterior–posterior commissure (AC–PC) midline in
  non-hallucinating (upper row) and
  hallucinating patients
  with schizophrenia when listening to dichotic presentations of speech sounds.
  Note the absence of significant activation in the left temporal lobe in the hallucinating patients (p < 0.001, uncorrected).

Oh for goodness sake VA..sometimes I just want to slap you over the head with a wet fish..lol..hey, you are precious, you are life, I'm not messing with you, lets just be honest and open here, and not get too hung up over who is right or wrong. We're just trying to understand reality the best we can.

NOW, Don't you be ignorant by saying there are such things as people and brains that die...seriously, these are just beliefs taken on blind faith, like the God you deny as being impossible, and yet here you are manifesting these beliefs about people and brains as if they are actually possible and real..oh the Irony.

Then your ignorance goes even more insane by showing an image of the brain on an MRI scan to prove the brain exists, as if the brains whole existence is proven because it is seen in an image.

This still does not explain who is seeing and and knowing the image? ..

You really are not thinking very deeply enough about this are you...try to think past the image to that which is seeing and knowing the image?

Don't get caught up in the picture...I am not in the picture, the picture is in I.

Who / What Am I?

I know you are but what AM I ?

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hallucination is not taking place in the brain. There is no proof it does. That belief is taken completely on blind faith.

What??

Don't simply blabber based on ignorance.

A dead person with a dead brain do not hallucinate.
Therefore hallucination takes place in the living brain.

There are experiments on the difference in brain activity of a person who is hallucinating and when the brain is not hallucinating.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9065318
Seeing visual hallucinations with functional magnetic resonance imaging.

• 
  
  Figure 3. fMRI activation data shown in three axial slices above the anterior–posterior commissure (AC–PC) midline in
  non-hallucinating (upper row) and
  hallucinating patients
  with schizophrenia when listening to dichotic presentations of speech sounds.
  Note the absence of significant activation in the left temporal lobe in the hallucinating patients (p < 0.001, uncorrected).

Oh for goodness sake VA..sometimes I just want to slap you over the head with a wet fish..lol..hey, you are precious, you are life, I'm not messing with you, lets just be honest and open here, and not get too hung up over who is right or wrong. We're just trying to understand reality the best we can.

NOW, Don't you be ignorant by saying there are such things as people and brains that die...seriously, these are just beliefs taken on blind faith, like the God you deny as being impossible, and yet here you are manifesting these beliefs about people and brains as if they are actually possible and real..oh the Irony.

Then your ignorance goes even more insane by showing an image of the brain on an MRI scan to prove the brain exists, as if the brains whole existence is proven because it is seen in an image.

This still does not explain who is seeing and and knowing the image? ..

You really are not thinking very deeply enough about this are you...try to think past the image to that which is seeing and knowing the image?

Don't get caught up in the picture...I am not in the picture, the picture is in I.

Who / What Am I?

I know you are but what AM I ?

Wonder you are very familiar with Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum, i.e. 'I Think' Therefore 'I AM'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

If not I suggest you try and get deeply into it to understand what Descartes intended and the counters against Descartes' claim.

I have stated many times, the 'Think' is the empirical self that has many layers of selves with one fundamental empirical self.
Descartes claimed there is a transcendental ontological self beyond the empirical self.
Your claim of the 'I AM' is the same as that of Descartes' in the Cogito.

Over the years many has countered Descartes, i.e. that "I AM" is fictitious, an illusion and not real.
I suggest you get familiar with the counters and critiques of the Cogito.

Note it is only Descartes, but this issue of 'I AM" has been raised thousands of years before Descartes within the Indian spiritual community. The "I AM" is similar to the 'atman' and this has been countered by the Buddhist's anatta, anatman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.

I suggest you go in great depth into the philosophy of the above from both sides.

I have already gone over with you on the same issue but you are spraying it all over thus messy because you lack the fundamental and principles.
You know if you sit under an apple tree, apples will fall on your head but you are not Newton who strive to understand the principles involved.
You have had some 'experiences' but the ultimate reality and truth they are an illusion if you insist what you 'experienced' or recall from is real.

Note I have read hundreds of books and articles on this issue of a non-existing Descartes' "I AM."

I would recommend you read the 'Ego Tunnel' by Thomas Metzinger

https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Scien ... 0465020690

We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, something that we either have or are.
In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists.

The conscious self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal image, but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience is “a virtual self in a virtual reality.”

But if the self is not “real,” why and how did it evolve?
How does the brain construct it?
Do we still have souls, free will, personal autonomy, or moral accountability?

In a time when the science of cognition is becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind.

[Dontaskme]

Wonder you are very familiar with Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum, i.e. 'I Think' Therefore 'I AM'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Which philosopher isn't? ..you are always pointing out the obvious.

If not I suggest you try and get deeply into it to understand what Descartes intended and the counters against Descartes' claim.

Been there, done that, bought the T shirt..next?

Descartes claimed there is a transcendental ontological self beyond the empirical self.
Your claim of the 'I AM' is the same as that of Descartes' in the Cogito.

NO..you are wrong again, why do you keep making wild false judgements into what other people are thinking, this is NOT my claim at all. I have never ever once claimed such a ridiculous idea that what I think is the same as what Descartes thinks...where on earth have I ever claimed that?
I don't and have never agreed with Descartes ideas.

Over the years many has countered Descartes, i.e. that "I AM" is fictitious, an illusion and not real.
I suggest you get familiar with the counters and critiques of the Cogito.

I suggest you shut up with your stupid ass u me comments about what you think other people are thinking.

Note it is only Descartes, but this issue of 'I AM" has been raised thousands of years before Descartes within the Indian spiritual community. The "I AM" is similar to the 'atman' and this has been countered by the Buddhist's anatta, anatman.

So what? ..it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, reality doesn't have a purpose to be, its just reality being without a purpose other than to be. It just IS..thats the beautiful freedom about it that is does not conjure up all sorts of negative demons about itself. Its totally liberated and free in every moment.

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.

This is totally meaningless without relating it to its opposite. Both the non-self and self are the same reality. To be able to think about any conceptual thing there has to be an awareness of those things in the first place else the thought of things would never even arise and they clearly do because you contantly refer to them.

I suggest you go in great depth into the philosophy of the above from both sides.

Been there, done that bought the T shirt.

Why do you always assume to think I do not know what I am talking about? I have had direct experience of A.I. ..it cannot be put into words or be analysed.. any attempt to do so will be an epic fail. As we can see when trying to discuss it with others...it ususally ends up become a right mud bath of egos all fighting over who is right and who is not right, like no thats not right, this is right, no this is right, that is wrong...its so stupid.

I have already gone over with you on the same issue but you are spraying it all over thus messy because you lack the fundamental and principles.

you have no authority to say that, neither have you any proof that what you ass u me is true.

I could say the same things about you...so what next?

You know if you sit under an apple tree, apples will fall on your head but you are not Newton who strive to understand the principles involved.
You have had some 'experiences' but the ultimate reality and truth they are an illusion if you insist what you 'experienced' or recall from is real.

There is no you to know the illusion, the illusion is known but not by you, therefore the illusion is real.

Note I have read hundreds of books and articles on this issue of a non-existing Descartes' "I AM."

I would recommend you read the 'Ego Tunnel' by Thomas Metzinger

https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Scien ... 0465020690

I've already read it...and yes, I did undertsand it...now what?

We're used to thinking about the self as an independent entity, something that we either have or are.
In The Ego Tunnel, philosopher Thomas Metzinger claims otherwise: No such thing as a self exists.

I already know this....There is no self, but there is reality.

The conscious self is the content of a model created by our brain—an internal image, but one we cannot experience as an image. Everything we experience is “a virtual self in a virtual reality.”

That's what I have been saying all along, why can't you see that?

But if the self is not “real,” why and how did it evolve?
How does the brain construct it?
Do we still have souls, free will, personal autonomy, or moral accountability?

The brain doesn't contruct anything, that's just a belief, all there is are empty images of the imageless appearing real... aka A.I. (Absolute Infinity)

In a time when the science of cognition is becoming as controversial as evolution, The Ego Tunnel provides a stunningly original take on the mystery of the mind.

The whole of reality is a mystery ..in that there is no one in it to ever solve it, reality is living itself all alone all by itself, its a bastard child, there is no one living it, one is being lived...the proof is in the pudding..this is is, there is no one to claim or deny, except the fool...albeit illusory fool.

.

[-1-]

Don't waste your time with 'Reflex.'
I had bad encounters with Reflex's one-liners in another forum.

Thanks, VeriAe.

I guess mine was just a reflex reaction.

[surreptitious57]

reality doesnt have a purpose to be its just reality being without a purpose other than to be. It just IS..thats the beautiful freedom
about it that is does not conjure up all sorts of negative demons about itself. Its totally liberated and free in every moment

Human beings think that there has to be some metaphysical reason for reality existing when the simple truth of the matter is
that there is no such reason. Reality exists because it can and that is as profound as it gets. Anything else is irrelevant to this

[surreptitious57]

We are a form of energy in a Universe made from energy so we are in that respect nothing very particularly special
There is no reason why the energy we are is in any way different to any other energy beyond our basic complexity

[Veritas Aequitas]

You claimed you have read those topics I have pointed out but you do not seem to understand the essence of the topics.

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.

This is totally meaningless without relating it to its opposite. Both the non-self and self are the same reality. To be able to think about any conceptual thing there has to be an awareness of those things in the first place else the thought of things would never even arise and they clearly do because you constantly refer to them.

As I had stated [many times] there are many layers of selves with a fundamental self within the unconscious of a living person. (Note this again.)

When there is non-self, there is no AWARENESS of whatever sort of the real sense.
That awareness you claimed is linked to the self of the living person.
Where you think that awareness is some thing of essence [thing in itself], that is an illusion.

Why do you always assume to think I do not know what I am talking about? I have had direct experience of A.I. ..it cannot be put into words or be analysed.. any attempt to do so will be an epic fail. As we can see when trying to discuss it with others...it ususally ends up become a right mud bath of egos all fighting over who is right and who is not right, like no thats not right, this is right, no this is right, that is wrong...its so stupid.

There are so many people who have claimed direct [spiritual] experience of altered states of consciousness of all sorts.
These altered states of consciousness could be extra-ordinary experiences but they are nothing more than activities within the brain arising from a wide range of reasons.
You just cannot jumped to the conclusion that there is some 'thing' [thing-in-itself] as a basis of those experiences.

As I had stated [many times] the altered states of consciousness experienced by many arose from many reasons, i.e. out of the blue, meditation, various spiritual practices, lack of sleep, drugs, hallucinogens, mental illness, brain damage, knock on the head, various other reasons. These range of reasons put doubts in your claim.
How do you know your so claimed direct experience has nothing to do with one of the above? It could some strange alignment of certain neurons in your brain that enable you to experience that altered states of consciousness.

Many of those who experienced such altered states of consciousness linked it with a God but cannot produce solid proofs.

One of the most serious consequences that lead from this idea of God is the terrible evil and violent acts SOME evil prone theists had committed on humanity and it is still a very critical threat to humanity in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

reality doesnt have a purpose to be its just reality being without a purpose other than to be. It just IS..thats the beautiful freedom
about it that is does not conjure up all sorts of negative demons about itself. Its totally liberated and free in every moment

Human beings think that there has to be some metaphysical reason for reality existing when the simple truth of the matter is
that there is no such reason. Reality exists because it can and that is as profound as it gets. Anything else is irrelevant to this

Agree.
However it would be a philosophical obligation to understand why so many think there is a metaphysical purpose from a metaphysical being [God] when there is none.

My proposition is, the impulse to reify a metaphysical thing out of nothing is due to existential psychological reasons.

We are a form of energy in a Universe made from energy so we are in that respect nothing very particularly special
There is no reason why the energy we are is in any way different to any other energy beyond our basic complexity

Agree as justified by scientific theories.

[surreptitious57]

reality doesnt have a purpose to be its just reality being without a purpose other than to be. It just IS..thats the beautiful freedom
about it that is does not conjure up all sorts of negative demons about itself. Its totally liberated and free in every moment

Human beings think that there has to be some metaphysical reason for reality existing when the simple truth of the matter is
that there is no such reason. Reality exists because it can and that is as profound as it gets. Anything else is irrelevant to this

However it would be a philosophical obligation to understand why so many think there is a metaphysical purpose
from a metaphysical being [ God ] when there is none
My proposition is the impulse to reify a metaphysical thing out of nothing is due to existential psychological reasons

That is also my conclusion and the existential psychological reason is fear of death and also human arrogance in expecting immortality as
a given. I however have no need for God because I have no fear of death. I have no fear of death because it is a state of non consciousness
that I cannot actually experience just as I could not experience the state of non consciousness that existed before I was actually conceived

[Veritas Aequitas]

Human beings think that there has to be some metaphysical reason for reality existing when the simple truth of the matter is
that there is no such reason. Reality exists because it can and that is as profound as it gets. Anything else is irrelevant to this

However it would be a philosophical obligation to understand why so many think there is a metaphysical purpose
from a metaphysical being [ God ] when there is none
My proposition is the impulse to reify a metaphysical thing out of nothing is due to existential psychological reasons

That is also my conclusion and the existential psychological reason is fear of death and also human arrogance in expecting immortality as
a given. I however have no need for God because I have no fear of death. I have no fear of death because it is a state of non consciousness
that I cannot actually experience just as I could not experience the state of non consciousness that existed before I was actually conceived

Agree.

Re 'fear of death' I understand your point and it is generic to ALL humans that they are not conscious of the 'fear of death' at all times.
But the 'fear of death' is inherent at the subconscious levels within ALL human beings because human beings have evolved to suppress any conscious fear of death. However, each human being do have intermittent awareness and conscious fear of death, but such is quickly suppressed/inhibited naturally.

There are exceptions where the inhibitors in the brain do not work to suppress the fear of death from arising to the conscious levels of the mind.
This is a mental illness of Thanatophobia.

Death Anxiety is anxiety caused by thoughts of death. One source defines death anxiety as a "feeling of dread, apprehension or solicitude (anxiety) when one thinks of the process of dying, or ceasing to 'be'".[1]
Also referred to as thanatophobia (fear of death), death anxiety is distinguished from necrophobia, which is a specific fear of dead or dying people and/or things (i.e., fear of others who are dead or dying, not of one's own death or dying).
-wiki

Because the fear of death is inherent and necessary to ensure survival by avoiding premature death, it is still active at the subconscious level.
When this fear of death at the subconscious level is not modulated effectively as it is in the majority, these unmmodulated impulses compel a person to turn to some entity for security, i.e. the most common being God in various degrees from Abrahamic to pantheism and deism, etc.

The subconscious 'fear of death' impulse also drive the non-theists to do terrible evil things.

Why you are not a theist is because your neural settings at present did not drive you along the theistic path.
One cannot be certain of being non-theistic all the time.
If the inhibitors that suppress the theistic impulse break down, the person may turn to theism or deism.

Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others.
But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

Many older people turned to God because of the natural atrophy of neurons which also effect those neurons that inhibit the theistic impulse.

Note Anthony Flew, the once world's most notable atheist who turned to deism in his early 80s where it took many of his non-theistic followers by surprised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

[Dontaskme]

Human beings think that there has to be some metaphysical reason for reality existing when the simple truth of the matter is
that there is no such reason.

But that's just the trick of the mind itself, it invents illusory characters believed to be real.. while the mind itself is unknowable. This is whats known as self-deception.

The projection that reality is human who is capable of having thoughts about what they know to be reality is all mental. This is only mind activity. Yet, no mind has ever been seen, its just a conceptual belief based on faith that it exists.


I see a human existing as a conceptual belief in the mind, which is then taken on faith. I have no idea who or what I am only that I AM , and that thoughts do APPEAR to me within my I AMness...I have no idea what a thought is or what this I am is..only that it is.

I cannot see my thoughts, so my thoughts are just ideas, beliefs, and concepts superimposed in an arbitrary context upon my not-knowingness within my own direct experience.

Like you, I don't see any reason or purpose for anything in my direct experience.

Thoughts of evil existing in the world is just a belief, its not actually there, except as a conceptual belief, same as the existential crisis that AV talks about, this too doesn't exist except in the mind of the one believing it exists, its bascially just a complete and utter falacy of the mind.

How can that which only exists as a belief in a mind that has never been seen or be known .. have an existential crisis. This is where AV gets lost up his own skirt.

Now, the only real tangible true fact in reality is that the mind IS..but the mystery deepens when the mind itself realises there is nothing that the perceiver can do but perceive..and that it comes to realise that it cannot itself perceive what that perceiver is..it cannot do that, no more than we can lift ourselves up by the bootstraps....this is the nature of the mind, its self-deceptive, it lives based purely on belief and faith alone. The only mystery here is the mind. Everything else is just a fictional created KNOWN.


Identification with a fictionally created construct of the mind, is the belief in other where there is none.

The mind is infinity now, and everything of the mind is a feature of and within it ...but not it.

The MIND belongs to no one and no thing.

Theres just EVERYTHING AND NOTHING FOR ETERNITY INFINITELY.

There is nothing that is not everything and nothing.

There is nothing that is God and there is nothing that is not God.

Every concept is God, and God is not any concept.

God is just this ABSOLUTE Boundless Edgeless Space in which Everything and Nothing IS Without Beginning nor End Add Infintum.

This is my direct experience...everything else is a fictional story within it.


.


.