Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight.

[Immanuel Can]

A God-Man is an idea formed of the human brain.

So you say. So I refute.

[Dontaskme]

A God-Man is an idea formed of the human brain.

So you say. So I refute.

You refute because you have no counter argument ..all you have is your own belief... your belief is all you can and will ever know.

[Immanuel Can]

A God-Man is an idea formed of the human brain.

So you say. So I refute.

You refute because you have no counter argument

No, I refute because the claim is gratuitous and also wrong.

That'll do.

[Dontaskme]

So you say. So I refute.

You refute because you have no counter argument

No, I refute because the claim is gratuitous and also wrong.

That'll do.

The human brain is dual by nature and is why the human can know it is an individual ego apart from another, because that’s how knowledge works, it works by association of opposition in that it can differentiate between self and no self...



The self comes from no self.

So which is which?

Is one wrong and the other right?

That’s the nonsense of duality which thankfully is just an illusion

[Immanuel Can]

The human brain is dual by nature...

Eh?

What does that mean, in your view, and how do you know it's true?

[Dontaskme]

The human brain is dual by nature...

Eh?

What does that mean, in your view, and how do you know it's true?

Because it’s able to split what is one into many parts as and through the conception of itself.

[Dontaskme]

The human brain is dual by nature...

Eh?

What does that mean, in your view, and how do you know it's true?

Surely you must know that any truth claim about a knower of knowledge can only be a belief?

Surely you must know that any known thing cannot itself be the knower. And that the knower of all known things is unknowable. In other words there can only be known the known, and not the knower of the known.

Which logically states the knower can be nothing other than just a believed fable.

For example: I can know that I AM known...but this knowing cannot then know the creator of itself without that too becoming a known thing that cannot know.

A human can only know what the brain is telling it. The brain is a recorder of what is being programmed into it, and that programme is both inside and outside of the brain simultaneously believe it or not. In other words there is no inside or outside of anything or anywhere.

[Immanuel Can]

Surely you must know that any truth claim about a knower of knowledge can only be a belief?

Surely? Surely that's obviously false.

Truth is not merely a "claim," and not merely a "belief." It is the reality the "claim" or the "belief" is about.

[Dontaskme]

Surely you must know that any truth claim about a knower of knowledge can only be a belief?

Surely? Surely that's obviously false.

Truth is not merely a "claim," and not merely a "belief." It is the reality the "claim" or the "belief" is about.

But surely there is no truth except as a belief, or a claim?

For example: to know you exist as a man or a woman would be the belief in such, which would make that a truth claim...right?

so it's true that I am a woman, and that claim is being made as and through this believed to exist woman...but that's just knowledge known by no known knower, surely

[Immanuel Can]

But surely there is no truth except as a belief, or a claim?

Is that a true or false claim?

If you think it's true, what advantage has it over a false claim, if there is no reality about truth to make the former different from the latter?

[Dontaskme]

If you think it's true, what advantage has it over a false claim, if there is no reality about truth to make the former different from the latter?

To even ask that question you there would have to believe there is a someone to whom could know. So there could be no knowledge without the belief in that knowledge. Nor could there be a claimer of the knowledge without believing there is a knower.


That's the point I'm making, all truth claims and beliefs belong to the mental construct that is creating and knowing them. The mind cannot be proven or disproven to exist at all, it's just taken on faith and experience. There is no knowledge of how the mind is born, just that it is believed to exist.

Just as the belief that I am a woman is known, so too is the belief in God.

But those beliefs can only show up as long as I the woman know I exist as believed and claimed.

And so this knowledge leaves a massive gap in the all knowing God concept, for where or what is/ was God before the human brain showed up?

[Immanuel Can]

If you think it's true, what advantage has it over a false claim, if there is no reality about truth to make the former different from the latter?

To even ask that question you there would have to believe there is a someone to whom could know.

No. You could ask it of yourself. Indeed, it was my thought that you would.

...all truth claims and beliefs belong to the mental construct...

The "claims" and "beliefs" do; the truth does not.

You can see this in the fact that the "claim" is ABOUT something. For example, the claim "It is raining" is a claim about the state of precipitation outside your window. If you disbelieve that it is, and step outside, you will get wet, if it is raining. If you believe it is, but it is not, then when you step outside you will be dry.

The world will have rain long after the "believer in it" is dead, just as it rained many times on the earth before he was born.

[Dontaskme]

If you think it's true, what advantage has it over a false claim, if there is no reality about truth to make the former different from the latter?

To even ask that question you there would have to believe there is a someone to whom could know.

No. You could ask it of yourself. Indeed, it was my thought that you would.

Ok, I can ask myself the question, the one I believe and claim to exist? I can from direct experience know that I am both existing and none-existing. So which one is real and how would it know the difference?

The "claims" and "beliefs" do; the truth does not.

You can see this in the fact that the "claim" is ABOUT something. For example, the claim "It is raining" is a claim about the state of precipitation outside your window. If you disbelieve that it is, and step outside, you will get wet, if it is raining. If you believe it is, but it is not, then when you step outside you will be dry.

The world will have rain long after the "believer in it" is dead, just as it rained many times on the earth before he was born.

Yes I hear what you are saying, but knowing rain is rain is self evidently a factual event observed by my very existence, and not the same as the belief in a God is it?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes I hear what you are saying, but knowing rain is rain is self evidently a factual event observed by my very existence, and not the same as the belief in a God is it?

It is the same. If there is no God, no amount of belief will make one exist. If there is a God, then all the covering-the-eyes-with-hands or declaring, "Well, I'm an Atheist" can do even a single thing to make Him stop existing.

As the novelist Robertson Davies once said: "The important thing is not whether or not I believe that God exists, but whether or not He believes I do."

[Dontaskme]

Yes I hear what you are saying, but knowing rain is rain is self evidently a factual event observed by my very existence, and not the same as the belief in a God is it?

It is the same. If there is no God, no amount of belief will make one exist. If there is a God, then all the covering-the-eyes-with-hands or declaring, "Well, I'm an Atheist" can do even a single thing to make Him stop existing.

Existence is without doubt or error, everyone who is alive with the knowledge and intelligence to know this will agree. And yes, there is no power on earth to make existence not exist. But knowing can only work in opposition, to know, I also have to know I cannot know.

I AM but I cannot know who or what I AM without creating that knowledge mentally...which is another existing thing upon the thing that is already here prior to the knowledge of the other thing I have created. In other words my knowledge is my own creation, a human creation. The self is a human creation, there was no self prior to the human creation which is nothing other than a construct of the believing human brain/mind.

As the novelist Robertson Davies once said: "The important thing is not whether or not I believe that God exists, but whether or not He believes I do."

It's still going to be a belief either which way you look at it.
One does not have to believe one exists, when one clearly does, but the point is, this one that knows it exists does not know it's creator.
The one that knows it exists, cannot exist, except as a concept that cannot know anything, that's the dilemma of the believing brain which simply makes up a self from the belief itself.

In other words there's simply nothing here to make a God from...except in this conception, a story, and humans are the story tellers.