Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:38 pm
Does that person KNOW or SAY what 'God' IS, EXACTLY?

I dont know.

V A

To 'know' is to have real knowledge.
What is real knowledge is Justified True Belief -JTB [Gettier aside].
The JTB with the most credible knowledge is the scientific JTB.
God that is believed based on faith cannot be known scientifically.
Therefore God cannot be known as real.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Who taught the bird how to build a nest? Was it scientific knowledge. Did they have to go to school to learn how to build nests and believe in it? Yet they build nests regardless of their lack of education.

A priori knowledge is that which is independent from experience while a posteriori knowledge is that which depends on empirical evidence. You demand proof of God by a posteriori evidence while I assert that knowledge of that which is greater than ourselves and the source of our existence is a priori knowledge. It is intuitive knowledge we are born with.

The human problem is that only a small part of our collective presence is attracted to our source. The majority is animal as a machine serving the earth. A priori knowledge is limited by our normal earthly desires.

Man compensates for the human condition by inventing all sorts of interpretations and opinions about what God is. This attempt at a posteriori knowledge doesn't detract from the instinctive need to remember and expand on a priori knowledge at the depth of our being.

The a priori intuitive knowledge of God is also the source of objective human conscience. The secular drive to destroy a priori knowledge also destroys the human capacity to experience objective conscience. It is than replaced by indoctrinated political correctness.

Nietzsche wrote that God is dead and wonders what will replace what is being destroyed at the depths of the being of Man. I've wondered about that also. Hello 1984.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm V A

To 'know' is to have real knowledge.
What is real knowledge is Justified True Belief -JTB [Gettier aside].
The JTB with the most credible knowledge is the scientific JTB.
God that is believed based on faith cannot be known scientifically.
Therefore God cannot be known as real.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Who taught the bird how to build a nest? Was it scientific knowledge. Did they have to go to school to learn how to build nests and believe in it? Yet they build nests regardless of their lack of education.

A priori knowledge is that which is independent from experience while a posteriori knowledge is that which depends on empirical evidence. You demand proof of God by a posteriori evidence while I assert that knowledge of that which is greater than ourselves and the source of our existence is a priori knowledge. It is intuitive knowledge we are born with.

Not of any real importance, but I call this 'prior knowledge' or 'intuitive knowledge' an 'unconscious knowing'.

This 'knowing' is within ALL human beings, but, in the days of when this has been written, it has NOT YET become 'consciously known', by most human beings. This is because they have NOT YET discovered nor learned this knowledge. After one discovers and/or learns 'knowledge', from experience, then, as you say, that is what is called 'posteriori knowledge'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm The human problem is that only a small part of our collective presence is attracted to our source. The majority is animal as a machine serving the earth.

What do 'you' mean by 'human problem'?

To me, the word 'problem' just refers to a question, which is posed for a solution. To me, there is NO 'problem' in relation to human beings, of course other than the 'problems' (questions posed for a solution), which they make or create.

Now, to say, "Human problem", from my perspective is NOT a 'problem' AT ALL. That is; until you clarify what you actually mean.

'Our', human being, collective presence IS 'our' source, that is; 'God', which is just thee Universe, Itself, and thee Mind, Itself. Because of thee Universe, Itself, humans have evolved into beings and these human beings will continue to keep evolving and keep be-coming/evolving into ... . The more knowledge they obtain (of posteriori knowledge) and the more knowledge they ascertain (of priori knowledge), then the more knowledge they gain of who (and what) they Truly ARE. That is; God. Then they just have to wait, patiently, until they learn enough posteriori knowledge in regards to how they can better share this 'knowledge' with EVERY human being.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm A priori knowledge is limited by our normal earthly desires.

A 'priori knowledge' is actually limited by adult human beings deception. Adult human beings deceive and fool themselves. This is WHY a 'prior knowledge', which ALL human beings are born with is limited, blocked, or held within, and thus unable to be REVEALED and KNOWN, consciously. A PRIME EXAMPLE of just how human beings fool and deceive themselves can be CLEARLY SEEN in your sentence here. You are 'trying to' "justify" your 'earthly desires'/wants as being "normal". That way 'you' can "justify" to "yourself" to keep doing what you ALREADY KNOW, within, (a priori knowledge) is WRONG.

If some behavior is "normal" and/or EVERY one does it, then one is "justifying" to, or deceiving/fooling. "them self" that it is perfectly okay and all right to continue doing that behavior.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm Man compensates for the human condition by inventing all sorts of interpretations and opinions about what God is. This attempt at a posteriori knowledge doesn't detract from the instinctive need to remember and expand on a priori knowledge at the depth of our being.

Uncovering and allowing ALL 'a priori knowledge/unconscious KNOWING' to become and be REVEALED just takes one VERY SIMPLE and REALLY one VERY EASY 'thing', that is; just being Honest and be Willing/Wanting to change, for the better.

When 'you', adult human beings, start answering my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OPENLY and Honestly, then ALL starts becoming REVEALED.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm The a priori intuitive knowledge of God is also the source of objective human conscience. The secular drive to destroy a priori knowledge also destroys the human capacity to experience objective conscience. It is than replaced by indoctrinated political correctness.

Agree.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm Nietzsche wrote that God is dead and wonders what will replace what is being destroyed at the depths of the being of Man. I've wondered about that also. Hello 1984.

WHY care about what other 'human beings' say?

NO human being is better than NOR worse than another one. A priori knowledge is within ALL human beings, EQUALLY.

Thee ANSWERS, which ALL of you are seeking, are within EACH and EVERY one of 'you'. The way to find and obtain, consciously, that ALREADY KNOWN 'knowledge' is to just LOOK within Honestly.

OBVIOUSLY, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do some WRONG things. But because of 'political correctness', or just plain 'judgment', you ALL fear to much to be Truly Honest even with "your" own 'self', let alone with each "other".

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:11 pm V A

To 'know' is to have real knowledge.
What is real knowledge is Justified True Belief -JTB [Gettier aside].
The JTB with the most credible knowledge is the scientific JTB.
God that is believed based on faith cannot be known scientifically.
Therefore God cannot be known as real.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Who taught the bird how to build a nest? Was it scientific knowledge. Did they have to go to school to learn how to build nests and believe in it? Yet they build nests regardless of their lack of education.

Are you familiar with genetics and evolutionary natural selection and adaptations.

• The idea of natural selection is that traits that can be passed down allow organisms to adapt to the environment better than other organisms of the same species. This enables better survival and reproduction compared with other members of the species, leading to evolution. Jun 7, 2019
  https://www.nationalgeographic.org/ency ... daptation/

A priori knowledge is that which is independent from experience while a posteriori knowledge is that which depends on empirical evidence. You demand proof of God by a posteriori evidence while I assert that knowledge of that which is greater than ourselves and the source of our existence is a priori knowledge. It is intuitive knowledge we are born with.

The human problem is that only a small part of our collective presence is attracted to our source. The majority is animal as a machine serving the earth. A priori knowledge is limited by our normal earthly desires.

Man compensates for the human condition by inventing all sorts of interpretations and opinions about what God is. This attempt at a posteriori knowledge doesn't detract from the instinctive need to remember and expand on a priori knowledge at the depth of our being.

The a priori intuitive knowledge of God is also the source of objective human conscience. The secular drive to destroy a priori knowledge also destroys the human capacity to experience objective conscience. It is than replaced by indoctrinated political correctness.

Nietzsche wrote that God is dead and wonders what will replace what is being destroyed at the depths of the being of Man. I've wondered about that also. Hello 1984.

A posteriori knowledge [JTB] is that which is verified and justified from experiences of Nurture.

There is no such thing as a priori knowledge.
However what is knowledge can be contributed by elements in the human system that are prior to Nurture, i.e. a priori - Nature.

Whatever is Nature [a prior] is established and programmed via natural selection to ensure optimal survival, example the essential primal forces, instincts, etc.
The interactions of the above various programs manifest an existential dilemma that generate inherent cognitive dissonance that drive humans to seek consonance to relieve the associated existential pains.
Spontaneously the human psyche jump to the idea of a God to relieve the dissonance but this is based on faith but not on real knowledge via justified knowing.

There is a also inherent instinct within all human to know [etymology: scientia] thus ending with Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

To 'know' [Science] is to have real knowledge.
What is real knowledge is Justified True Belief -JTB [Gettier aside].
The JTB with the most credible knowledge is the scientific JTB.

God that is believed based on faith cannot be known scientifically.
Therefore God cannot be known as real.
My counter,
God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

If the above, then God cannot be known to be real at all.

God nevertheless can be thought of as an idea-in-mind.
The idea of God is useful and VERY effective to deal with an inherent and unavoidable existential psychological issue.
But such usefulness of a God is a double-edged-sword which at end end had brought forth terrible sufferings, evil and violence to humans and will continue to do so in the future with the possibility of the extinction of the humans species [note Islam].

To prevent the very terrible evil and violence, it would be a net-positive to wean off totally the idea of God from all humans, thus there will be ZERO God-based evil and violence.
This can be done with replacing the idea of God with fool proof secular practices to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential issue.

Your continual exhortation of the belief in God [illusory] [for personal selfish reason to deal with a psychological issue] is in a way complicit to the terrible evil and violence associated with a God.

You may not agree due to your clinging to your God [non-personal] as a consonance to deal with the terrible dissonance, but you cannot deny the fact of how the idea of God arise in the first place.
Can you counter my points above, that it is irrational or nonsense?

What I proposed is not irrational nor nonsense but had been adopted by various non-theistic spirituality and philosophy like Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism-proper and others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:31 amThe idea of God is useful and VERY effective to deal with an inherent and unavoidable existential psychological issue.

The psychological issue is a normal human condition, where the self-awareness of the person is able to understand their perception of what actions feel right and what actions feel wrong. We human sentient being have evolved enough to KNOW that doing good feels like the right thing to do. While doing bad feels like the wrong thing to do. We know that we can make our reality a good one or a bad one.

That knowing of the difference between good and evil is intrinsic to our knowledge, put there not by the person but by experientially living the truth that is written in God's word. Humans are not making the God character up in their brain/mind, it's the other way around. The brain/mind is doing everything. We didn't make our brain, the brain made us. That brain is God's brain.

Age

What do 'you' mean by 'human problem'?

To me, the word 'problem' just refers to a question, which is posed for a solution. To me, there is NO 'problem' in relation to human beings, of course other than the 'problems' (questions posed for a solution), which they make or create.

Now, to say, "Human problem", from my perspective is NOT a 'problem' AT ALL. That is; until you clarify what you actually mean.

'Our', human being, collective presence IS 'our' source, that is; 'God', which is just thee Universe, Itself, and thee Mind, Itself. Because of thee Universe, Itself, humans have evolved into beings and these human beings will continue to keep evolving and keep be-coming/evolving into ... . The more knowledge they obtain (of posteriori knowledge) and the more knowledge they ascertain (of priori knowledge), then the more knowledge they gain of who (and what) they Truly ARE. That is; God. Then they just have to wait, patiently, until they learn enough posteriori knowledge in regards to how they can better share this 'knowledge' with EVERY human being.

If the universe is God how does it effect the multi verse theory? Does this mean there are a multitude of Gods. If so does that mean there is no ONE God or source of all these Gods or universes?

The Human condition or human problem is that man on earth is not one; we are many. We lack inner unity but rather exist as a plurality in which the mind, emotions, and our senses are separate and often in opposition to each other. We can think one thing, emotionally experiencing another, while sensing another. They are not consciously connected but rather connected by imagination which makes our inner opposition endurable.

St. Paul describes the human condition in Romans 7. I've verified it in myself which is why rather than God, I am the wretched Man.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

Does the universe have a purpose in your hypothesis? Have you ever experienced the reality of your plurality through efforts to "Know Thyself"?

V A

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

You are confusing God as conscious potential with creation or the actualizations of conscious potential. Where God beyond time and space as conscious potential is perfect, creation within time and space is designed to be imperfect. That is how the living machine we call universe serves its purpose of transforming substances

Where you believe the attraction to God is a defense mechanism, I believe it is a normal conscious attraction to the inner light of consciousness much like a moth is mechanically attracted to the light in the world. How can we know? We can only know by beginning to "know thyself" or experience the reality of what we are

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:47 am

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him." Simone Weil

Well, you've got to admit, Nick, this isn't very helpful. "He is what we are not" covers an awful lot of things. One could say the same of practically any other object in the universe. My cat "is what we are not" -- feline.

We know God by "contemplating" our own "wretchedness"? Is this what Weil means? That doesn't seem right at all. It seems to me that what we learn from contemplating our own wretchedness is that we are wretched. But it's entirely unilluminating about God, since according to SW "He is what we are not" anyway.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:35 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:47 am

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him." Simone Weil

Well, you've got to admit, Nick, this isn't very helpful. "He is what we are not" covers an awful lot of things. One could say the same of practically any other object in the universe. My cat "is what we are not" -- feline.

We know God by "contemplating" our own "wretchedness"? Is this what Weil means? That doesn't seem right at all. It seems to me that what we learn from contemplating our own wretchedness is that we are wretched. But it's entirely unilluminating about God, since according to SW "He is what we are not" anyway.

Simone is describing the necessary psychological foundation a seeker of truth must have if their aim is genuine. By admitting we are a slave to the human condition they can be helped by grace to reconcile what Paul describes in romans 7. The term wretched doesn't mean morally bad. It just means we suffer a spiritual condition which can be helped.

The modern day glorification of fragmentation gives the impression that Man through technology is on the way to becoming gods. But the person who realizes their own inner slavery is open to experience that the human condition denies what they inwardly need in the depth of their being. In short they stop defending their inner lies

AA is good example of this. A person entering AA has experienced their helplessnes to alcohol and stops defending it. They let go and become open to receive the help of grace which can free them from addiction.

The one thing we can know about God is that unlike Man, God does not exist in contradiction we know as the human condition. The more we stop defending our wretchedness or inner slavery the more we can see it for what it is, By admitting what we don't know, our helplessness, in the context of conscious human potential offers the humility necessary to contemplate God so as to receive the help of grace.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:35 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:47 am

Well, you've got to admit, Nick, this isn't very helpful. "He is what we are not" covers an awful lot of things. One could say the same of practically any other object in the universe. My cat "is what we are not" -- feline.

We know God by "contemplating" our own "wretchedness"? Is this what Weil means? That doesn't seem right at all. It seems to me that what we learn from contemplating our own wretchedness is that we are wretched. But it's entirely unilluminating about God, since according to SW "He is what we are not" anyway.

Simone is describing the necessary psychological foundation a seeker of truth must have if their aim is genuine. By admitting we are a slave to the human condition they can be helped by grace to reconcile what Paul describes in romans 7.

So far, I don't disagree...but it's way more than anything SW gave us. So you're expatiating as you see fit, which is fine: but what SW actually said, or what you gave us of it, is still no help.

The term wretched doesn't mean morally bad. It just means we suffer a spiritual condition which can be helped.

Then it doesn't mean what Romans 7 is talking about. Romans 7 says, "sin." Sin is morally bad.

The one thing we can know about God is that unlike Man, God does not exist in contradiction we know as the human condition. The more we stop defending our wretchedness or inner slavery the more we can see it for what it is, By admitting what we don't know, our helplessness, in the context of conscious human potential offers the humility necessary to contemplate God so as to receive the help of grace.

I don't disagree...except that "admitting our own sin" is only a diagnosis of the problem, not a cure. The "grace" is not in human potential, nor even in human humility: it's in God.

I C

Then it doesn't mean what Romans 7 is talking about. Romans 7 says, "sin." Sin is morally bad.

We should discuss this since far too many have suffered simply by misunderstanding sin. A young person is brought up to believe they are "bad" when in reality they suffer the human condition

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

Paul states that before the law sin was dead in him. He did not know what it means to covet and then the sin of interpretations came along

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

When sin of interpretations came along, Paul died. (Compare to the story of Adam and Eve.) This isn't a matter of morality but of Human psychology.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Paul does not refer to morality or what we should or shouldn't do, but just to be able to consciously see sin for what it is and how we are a slave to sin. But who cn look?

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

This is the human condition. The mind wants freedom while the body and negative emotions are a slave to habitual sin. What can reconcile these three aspects of the human psych so they can function with inner unity? It is the energy of the Holy Spirit brought into the world by the resurrection of the Christ

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:24 pm I C

Then it doesn't mean what Romans 7 is talking about. Romans 7 says, "sin." Sin is morally bad.

We should discuss this since far too many have suffered simply by misunderstanding sin. A young person is brought up to believe they are "bad" when in reality they suffer the human condition

"The human condition" is, according to Romans, that of "sin."

We're not mere victims here, Nick: we choose what we are, as well. We're co-conspirators.

Paul states that before the law sin was dead in him. He did not know what it means to covet and then the sin of interpretations came along

No, no...read what else he said: Romans 5:12-13. Sin's still around when there's no knowledge of the Law. But it's there, alright. That's why "death reigned" before the giving of the Law. Like cancer, not knowing about it doesn't make it go away. It just makes you blind to the question of what's killing you.

What the Law does is focus our knowledge so we can come to recognize sin, to diagnose it for what it is, and to see ourselves as we ought to see ourselves. But it neither creates nor eliminates sin. It's a thermometer, so to speak; and is neither sin's cause or cure. It just registers for us the fact that we're sinners and out of right relationship with our Creator.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:10 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:24 pm I C

Then it doesn't mean what Romans 7 is talking about. Romans 7 says, "sin." Sin is morally bad.

We should discuss this since far too many have suffered simply by misunderstanding sin. A young person is brought up to believe they are "bad" when in reality they suffer the human condition

"The human condition" is, according to Romans, that of "sin."

We're not mere victims here, Nick: we choose what we are, as well. We're co-conspirators.

Paul states that before the law sin was dead in him. He did not know what it means to covet and then the sin of interpretations came along

No, no...read what else he said: Romans 5:12-13. Sin's still around when there's no knowledge of the Law. But it's there, alright. That's why "death reigned" before the giving of the Law. Like cancer, not knowing about it doesn't make it go away. It just makes you blind to the question of what's killing you.

What the Law does is focus our knowledge so we can come to recognize sin, to diagnose it for what it is, and to see ourselves as we ought to see ourselves. But it neither creates nor eliminates sin. It's a thermometer, so to speak; and is neither sin's cause or cure. It just registers for us the fact that we're sinners and out of right relationship with our Creator.

Paul wrote:

9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

What was alive and what died?

Romans 5

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

There is the death of animal Man but not the awareness of the spiritual direction which leads to the soul of Man. Grace awakens us to human conscious possibilities and the inner awareness of our Source. At the same time the effects of grace increases the power of sin necessary to deny grace. People die without being born again and follow the process of dust to dust. However once a person experiences what St. Paul did, life and death take on a whole new meaning and greater responsibilities.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:59 pm Paul wrote:

9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

What was alive and what died?

"I died".

There is the death of animal Man but not the awareness of the spiritual direction which leads to the soul of Man.

It's the opposite, actually. The "animal Man" is walking around, just fine (Eph. 2:1-2). But spiritually, there's no life in the "I." That's what "dead in your trespasses and sins" means; not that you were physically dead, but spiritually, that you were "dead."

It's rather like the old trope of the Jewish father who says to his wayward child, "You are dead to me." It doesn't mean he's literally, physically killed his child; it means that so far as any living, dynamic, meaningful connection with the father goes, the child is removed from it. He might as well be dead, then, so far as the father is concerned. There is no relationship anymore.

Two ways I can think of if that is one's objective.

- Don't ask for something in return which only serves to diminish the experience instead of intensifying it.

- Let god come to you as though it were a revelation something written on a blank sheet in which personal motives don't count.

In brief, don't force it!