No what's goobly gook is your attempt at high-mindedness in order to mask the underlying fact that you hold a presupposition of a designer - hence your observations leaning towards design. Look, East.. West.. South... North philosophy are all kosher. Point is, at least be honest and more so, intellectually honest about your beliefs. All this twisting and dodging and gainsaying... What on Earth is so wrong with saying, "hey I believe...?" Why such a dire need for validation of one's belief? It's funny to me because, sometimes you do actually make good and/or poignant posts. But then you go off into these depths of... I don't know how to properly describe it. Just stay rational and focused. Gain respect.
Pure Metaphysics. Please note that in this post, Z has revived his famous line The Rationalist: ZTroll, what is the origin of life on earth? ZTroll: Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality. The fact that ZTroll had disavowed the statement after being challenged in his first ID/Creation Statement of Faith means nothing to him. No one is allowed to ask him to explain his current statements in terms of his past ones. He is not accountable. I wish I had bookmarked the post where he recanted his initial statement about 'Magistrates being materialized out of pure potentiality'. It is somewhere in that long first thread, where he got his head handed to him on a silver platter and was reduced to threatening anal penetration if we wouldn't quit harassing him. Since then ZTroll has stopped posting bizarre images in response to requests for clarifications regarding apparent contradictions in his posts. At any rate, this post and Teleologist's inability to cite the evidence he claimed he had proves that the ID/Creationist arguments are based purely in metaphysics.
Yes, a design is not a creation, anymore than a blueprint is a building. This universe never got off the drawing board, so far as real creation is concerned...as real as it seems. It will dissolve because it is maintained by a false premise: that the Son of God could be guilty. When it is realized he is innocent, the blueprint will be tossed into the wastepaper basket. It was potentiality, and that's all. It was never possible. Everything in the universe is a symbol, including time. Because all it's symbols represent the impossible, they are meaningless. They are assigned erroneous meanings by mistaken minds that don't know what they are for. They are for meaninglessness, until assigned a new meaning by truth. Time and form are not eternal. They are aberrations of potential based on false logic: that the Son of God could be separate from his Father. Heaven knows nothing of form. Time is a vast illusion, a sleight of hand, a trick. Yes, such things can be designed by a kind of "program" that is not really a creator. I've described such a program as "ego", "egregore", and "devil". Physicality emerges from a mind in denial...a mind mercilessly accusing itself worthy of punishment, relative to the mistaken idea of separation. Separation is programmed into the design in the symbols of bodies, death, and also birth. In between, separation is programmed in everywhere, and separate eyeballs are made to look upon only separation and it's symbols. Death symbolizes the attempt to kill the Son of God who is eternal. All symbols in this universe are attempts to prove the opposite of all of the Son of God's attributes. His prime attribute is Oneness...so the universe symbolizes it's opposite. It is "anti" in every way. The Son of God is without beginning. Therefore, this universe shows it's opposite in the symbol of "birth". The Son of God does not "learn" and therefore does not adapt to survive...which are opposite attributes. The Son of God is perfect, the universe is imperfect...etc. Yes, it's all over the place as the symbol of the idea of separation. Such symbols, multiplied everywhere you look, would convince you - prove - that separation is a reality. It is not, so it is a trick. But this is it's purpose. There was no time these symbols were not in play because time is part of the symbolism of separation: one moment separated from another...past separated from the future. Time is the distance between crime - separation - and punishment. In between is guilt, maintaining a linear illusion of time. Yes. Despite all the symbols to the contrary, there is a sense that the Son of God cannot be killed. This universe is a mind asleep, dreaming of separation and guilt. It does awaken. But not to sleep again. The awakening is the second coming of the Son of God. There is no third coming, for he does not make the same mistake twice. He returns to his natural function: co-creating with his Father. Only those creations are eternal. This universe is not a creation. There is spirit and mind. Spirit is perfect and unchangeable. Mind is the creative aspect of spirit. Together with spirit, it creates eternal creations. Divorced from spirit, it exhibits potential, but cannot create. Divorced from spirit, mind is asleep, and bound to dream of miscreation. This is not a cycle. It is not any kind of creative cycle. It is mind, asleep, without the backing of spirit. So there is no creator, no God, no random chance, but all mind. All adaptation among the symbols of separation are symbols of making adjustments to the impossible. Designed from a state of sleep, and without knowledge, this universe was "learned". Separation is "learned", and survival inbetween birth and death must be learned also. This universe is a huge learning accomplishment. It is the impossible made to seem possible. Survival symbolizes the attempt to make the impossible plausible as long as possible. It symbolizes the wishes of the designer, to survive by substituting time with eternity, and staying one step ahead of it's "creatures". The ingenuity of the design is all about keeping it going. Complexity, confusion, guilt, and other sleights of hand are it's means. It can only survive if the dreamers are kept asleep, divided, and insane. It's purpose is to maintain seriously insane notions. Death is a symbol of separation. It dates back to the idea that thoughts could leave their source...that Heaven could separate from it's Creator. The experience felt like...well, death! Since separation is impossible, death must also be. Birth symbolizes the sudden, rude, exile from Heaven - symbolized by the womb. Sex symbolizes an attempt to get back into Heaven (The Garden of Eden). Consciousness did not come into the picture until there seemed to be a separation. For in order for there to be consciousness, there must be something else to be conscious of. This universe is entirely of the realm of consciousness, which is not the natural state of mind of the Son of God. His is the realm of knowledge and non-dual oneness. Consciousness split yet again and again, making a layer cake of levels of awareness. The world you see is made by the deepest layers. How you act is made by surface layers. Yet everything was made simultaneously. Therefore all actions are scripted. After "learning" to separate, God was just a distant memory. A confused consciousness assumed it was "kicked out" of Heaven for attacking it, and must be guilty. The universe was "made" as a way of dealing with the guilt...hiding from punishment. It is held together by guilt. When guilt is seen as a seriously insane notion, the universe will disappear. Yes. Jesus
Newtonian physics held that objects were real and outside of you with a separate existence. Quantum physics demonstrates that this is not true. The universe is not what you assume it to be; everything that appears to exist is really inseparable thought. You can't even observe something without causing a change in it on the sub-atomic level. As aspects of Buddhism correctly teach, the mind that is thinking everything is one mind, and this mind is completely outside the illusion of time and space. My contribution is the truth that: This mind is also an illusion! And what thinks itself to be separate - this mind - must be returned to God. It should be self-evident that if there is only oneness, then anything else that appears to exist must have been made up...and it must have been made up for what appeared to be a good reason. Instead of judging it's appearances, I found it more helpful to ask what value I saw in making it up in the first place. That put me in a position to ask myself what would be an appropriate response to it now. To know the world is an illusion is not enough. If you don't know the purpose of the dream and the meaning of the images you are seeing, than the general teaching that the world is an illusion is of very limited value. It's good that you are questioning such symbols as birth, adaptation and death. Find the reason, and you will find the cause of this universe. But you must not stop there. You must see that the "cause" is causeless, meaningless, and impossible. If so, it has no effects you need fear, none that need be judged, none to be condemned. Simply put, everything is to be forgiven till the mind is returned to it's Oneness. Jesus
ddunbar Its' early . I'll reciprocate in kind and try to make this double semi quick.... I read through your "boilerplate bookmarkâ and quite honestly without meaning any disrespect to you at all , in my view there are double standards being played here over two separate points at issue. I am not trying to disparage your post to the Zz troll, far from it, but would like to use it as a template . I am merely trying to explain to you (still!) as simply as I can, where I see your mistake in what you first brought about to be our side-debate. You state: "Most of the world believes there's a designer as most of the world is theist. So naturally things will look designed to them. As it does to me. Or perhaps you. And certainly T." Aren't you quite rightly confirming the presence of an appeal to a majority here? "But, a truly rational person will ask, "well, it looks designed perhaps, but where is the designer or does one even exist?" If you can't prove a designer, you can't posit design with any stringency. Now In my view correctly again, you illustrate why there is a logical error in that appeal and how it is simply not reliable. To assume, only because everyone assumes.... is unsafe . Now let's use this very same approach to our discussion.... "Most of the world believes" << that an atheist denies and or disbelieves that God exists.>> "as most of the world is theist. So naturally things will look"<< that way >>"to them. As it does to me. Or perhaps you." All I have done is alter the subject of your sentence, not the substance . Logically it is still the same appeal to a majority. which you highlighted. to continue.... "But, a truly rational person will ask, "well, it looks like<< disbelief >> perhaps, but where is the God or does one even exist?" If you can't prove << God>>, you can't posit << disbelief >>with any stringency. So ddunbar , to propose design presumes a designer To propose disbelief presumes an asserter. Yet it is understood is it not, that where there simply is no significance , there need be no assertion. In other words disbelief does not logically require the positive assertion of doubt or refusal , but can be an understanding that a proposal has signified nothing, simply because nothing is 'proved' to be there If you will excuse my impertinence, you cannot hold one standard of reason and logic to Tele or the Zz troll argument, then throw it all out the window to hold a different standard of reason to argue ours. Furthermore, most of the world may well believe the definition of atheist requires a disbelief. You point out how that presumption is not reliable. But then you say, the common understanding by a majority you will accept as being reliable (dictionary). Any other reasonable logical representation is thereafter rejected by you in favor of a majority. But on top of that there is a logical concept which has nothing to do with a requirement of belief or non belief. Ignoring it, you presuppose a false dichotomy as true. Logically, reasonably, rationally, there is not only belief or non belief as the only possible circumstances which enable a state of mind to understand things. Quite simply the non acceptance of illogical premises is not disbelieving or believing. Things that don't mean anything don't need generate a position or opinion or belief or non belief , one way or the other. I understand that, to many atheists, God(s) or deities etc simply "do not compute". They present illogical irrational propositions which require no belief or disbelief . The God premises are simply found irrational and therefore produce an indifferent response. A similar reaction , with cognizance (grown) or without cognizance (babies) . In that way, the word atheist defines something which is nothing whatsoever to do with a presumption of denial, rejection, refusal or disbelief. which are often assumed to be there usually by the theist. Those assumptions are commonly made through the philosophy "it's what most of the world believes ". That is the appeal to a majority. We know though that "a world" writes some very one-sided rules against things that don't conform, only to re-write later what was once dissent into common understanding . Another perfectly reasonable concept is where the Ancient Greek "godless" ....a-theos.... describes a situation where a God or all the Gods desert a person or group. People could still believe in Gods yet be in a state of Godlessness. Described and defined as ' a-theos./ a-theist ' Your posts make excellent demonstration of how one's religious beliefs can be held to one side toavoid crippling other reasonable rational or logical discourse. You keep the metaphysical separate. Quite the opposite for the ZZzz Troll and ID/Creationists in general who seem incapable of that But for some reason or other, my suggestion is only that you too cannot make that separation at the pont of the babies/atheist concept. I do not see why you cannot. I don't want to labor the rest of your post (this was supposed to be a quick un) ...as I think you have generally ruled out of it the rational and reasonable approach, to give way to some hoary old chestnuts like .. "it is a common understanding that humans are hardwired to conjure up thoughts of god(s)" ..... um yeh like... it is commonly understood humans are hardwired to drive a car. That's the same argument as Tele's " It looks like......[people are hardwired] ". You are however , strangely from my perspective, able to notice his mistake, but not your own when it comes to atheist or especially babies being atheist. You see, it is not consistent in my view for you to use reason and logic to argue one point, whilst at the same time on another issue use all the logical fallacies and inconsistencies seen when religious considerations get mixed in, which you otherwise censure . It drums up images of Trojan Horses by stealth. Another surreptitious method to undermine the rationality and science of it all .. Like Teleologists and the rest of the political wedge wing from the ID/Creation brigade That's not what you are doing of course.. I 'm not accusing you of purpose or intention in that regard, .... but there is a confusion made from it which tends to be the very thing ID/Creationists like to thrive on. But oh those darned Greeks eh. they sure can get their way into all sides of things without sometimes one really being aware.. Anyway, as you say you will not respond (wot again!!)... good luck to you and believe me, I admire your perceptions and that ability to make the essential separation (but of course just don't agree with you in one particular part) ....even though you call me names... ya nasty bastid!
In the world of man you believe, very practically and objectively, that there is in fact a subject - you - and an object, namely, anything else. This attitude was well expressed through the model of Newtonian physics. The objects that make up a human's universe, which until the last few hundred years was simply called the world and referred to all of manifestation, are believed to be apart from you and can be manipulated by you - "you" meaning the body and brain that run it. In fact, as I have already touched upon, the body and brain that you think are you appear to have been caused by the world. As we will see, this idea is exactly backwards! Jesus
There are four major attitudes you will go through in your return to God. Everyone will go through all four of them, and everyone who progresses will occasionally and unexpectedly bounce back and forth from one to the other. Each level brings with it different thoughts and resulting experiences, and you will interpret the exact same scripture differently depending on which attitude of learning you are currently engaged in. Those four attitudes will be: dualism, semi-dualism, non-dualism, and pure non-dualism. You are currently reacting to the kind of God concept emerging out of a belief in dualism. When you realize there is no such God, you can move on. Dualism is the condition of almost all the universe. The mind believes in the domain of subject and object. Conceptually, it would appear to those who believe in God that there are two worlds that are both true: The world of God, and the world of man. This drives Newtonian physics. As some of your scientists of quantum physics know, duality is a myth. For example, take the old riddle of a tree falling in the forest. If there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? If you said the tree always makes a sound whether someone else is around or not, you'd be enormously wrong, even on the level of form. What the tree does is send out sound waves. Sound waves, like radio waves - and for that matter, energy waves - require a receiver to pick them up. There are many radio waves going through the room you sit in now, but there is no sound because there is no receiver tuned to them. The human or animal ear is a receiver. Sound isn't sound until you hear it. Similarly, a wave of energy does not appear to be matter until you see or touch it. In order for anything to interact, you must have duality. Without duality there is nothing to interact with. There can be nothing in a mirror without an image that appears to be opposite it, attached to an observer to see it. Without duality, there is no tree in the forest. And if duality is a myth, not only is there no tree, but there is also no universe. Without you to perceive it, the universe is not here. But logic would have to dictate that if the universe is not here, then you are also not here. In order to make the illusion of existence, you must take oneness and seemingly divide it, which is precisely what you've done. It's all a trick. The concept of oneness is hardly an original one. However, the question few people ever ask is: What am I really one with? Although most of those who do ask this question would say the answer is God, they then make the error of assuming they and this universe were created in their present form by the Divine. That is not true, and it leaves the seeker in a position where even if he masters the mind, as Buddha certainly did, he will still not reach God in a permanent way. Yes, he will achieve oneness with the mind that made the duality waves. This mind, in a non-place that transcends all of your dimensions, is completely outside the system of time, space, and form. This is the logical and proper extension of non-duality, yet it is still not God. It is, in fact, a dead end. Or better yet, a dead beginning. This explains why Buddhism, which is obviously the world's most psychologically sophisticated religion, does not handle the issue of God. It's because Buddha didn't handle the issue of God while he was still in the body you call Buddha. When Buddha said, "I am awake", he meant he realized that he was not actually a participant in the illusion, but the maker of the entire illusion. Still, there is another step required, where the mind that is the maker of the illusion chooses completely against itself in favor of God. Of course someone of Buddha's tremendous accomplishment had a snap of it, quickly going on to the exact same awareness as myself. But this was done by Buddha in a lifetime the world doesn't even know about. It's not unheard of for people to achieve my level of enlightenment in obscurity, and for the world to think they achieved it in a more famous lifetime where they really didn't. Bottom line: You can't have both God and your universe. You can't have both you and God. The two are mutually exclusive. You'll have to choose. There is an astonishing parallel between what happened to Hinduism and what happened to my teachings. I taught pure non-dualism, interpreted by the world of dualism. The Vedanta was non-dualism, interpreted by the world of dualism. Today, you have two huge religions that are controlled by a reactionary majority, both in competition for the hearts and minds of a world that isn't even there - one religion being the symbol of a government based on money, and the other religion being the symbol of a government that could possibly engage in nuclear war along with it's next-door, equally reactionary Muslim neighbor... ...and here you are, stu, reacting to the reactionaries! Such antics may be good enough for most of the planet, but they don't have to be good enough for you. The attitude of non-dualism tells you that what you are seeing is not the truth. If it's not the truth, then how can you judge it? To judge it is to give it reality. But how can you judge and give reality to that which isn't there? And if it's not there, why would you need to acquire it, or fight a war over it, or make it more holy or valuable than something else? How could one piece of land on earth be more important than another? Why is Tibet more important than anyplace else? Now you realize there isn't any such thing as a subject and an object, there is only oneness. Still unknown to you is that this is an imitation of oneness, for few have learned to make the distinction between being one with the mind that has seemingly separated itself from God, and being one with God. You are reacting to the inevitable picture of God that arises out of dualistic attitudes. Such a God is both forgiving and wrathful, both loving and a killer, apparently depending on what kind of a mood He's in. This may be a good description of a dualistic mind, but it is hardly a description of God. Your split mind has unconsciously assigned to God the same qualities that your seemingly separated mind itself possesses. Thus, God and the messages that seem to come from him are conflicted. The reactionary preaches such a God out of fear. You deny this aspect of your mind by reacting to the reactionaries. Almost needless to say, all of this leads to countless oddities, including the bizarre notion that God would somehow play a role in instructing people to kill other people in order to acquire certain lands and possessions...or bring a certain version of justice or the right religion to everyone. The nonsensical tragedy of duality is considered to be normal by all modern societies, which are themselves as mad as a hatter. Jesus
Stu, Unfortunately for your argument, the following is in no way an appeal to the majority. (Which would be using the subjective state of large numbers of people, not just a single person, as evidence for the truth of a proposition). It is in fact merely a factual observation used to explain to Zx10 why most people will see design. He after all, attempted to use anecdotal evidence surrounding children to support his contention. The following does not support nor lend credence to the notion of design in any way, which of course renders you argument moot: "Most of the world believes there's a designer as most of the world is theist. So naturally things will look designed to them. As it does to me. Or perhaps you. And certainly T." And the following which I wrote, underscores the fact that it is not an appeal to the majority as it dispells the notion that observation of design concludes design - a position theists default to without reasoning it through. "But, a truly rational person will ask, "well, it looks designed perhaps, but where is the designer or does one even exist?" If you can't prove a designer, you can't posit design with any stringency." Sorry old friend. You'll have to take another approach. A dictionary is not an appeal to a majority, nor an appeal to an authority. It is an official reference for any given language as all it does is catalogue the accepted and common use of words, their actual etymologies, and evolution of a language. Again, without that general stability and reliablity of word meanings over time, communication, especially effective communication, would be impossible.