[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[madera23]

I do not care how many believed.

Can you provide an example of a "miracle" that could not be more parsimoniously explained via illusion, coincidence, hoax, exaggeration, outright fabrication, or imagination?

posted in error.

 

[ScottA]

So reality is what is not true.

What then do we call what is actually true?

You won't get anywhere if you cannot communicate your ideas coherently. Redefining words on the fly to suit yourself does not help.

I don't know. Are you open to the idea that your experiences are only imagined, hence the problem you have of convincing others that they were real?

No free lunches here. Demonstrate your claims, or retract 'em.

I do not know what the word "spiritual" means, and you just said that "reality" is what is not true.

I think this pitch of yours needs some work.

1. Reality is what IS true, just not what is believed to be true.
2. If you want to call this unreality something...there is already a word for it: creation.
3. In the big book on redefining the words, this is called "the renewing of your mind." They thought of everything.
4. The demonstration of my claims is the world...and, yes, it is to be retracted.
5. The unseen spiritual realm is what is real, in which the visible world was born (created) to demonstrate the greater truth, while culling out that which are not interested in the spiritual existence. If you are not interested in perfection, in everlasting life, in justice, then this world, and this world alone, is for you. On the other hand, if you think you might like to entertain some o that eternity...you're going to have to read between the lines. The would-be facts before you...it's only smoke and mirrors.

 

[madera23]

1. Reality is what IS true, just not what is believed to be true.
2. If you want to call this unreality something...there is already a word for it: creation.
3. In the big book on redefining the words, this is called "the renewing of your mind." They thought of everything.
4. The demonstration of my claims is the world...and, yes, it is to be retracted.
5. The unseen spiritual realm is what is real, in which the visible world was born (created) to demonstrate the greater truth, while culling out that which are not interested in the spiritual existence. If you are not interested in perfection, in everlasting life, in justice, then this world, and this world alone, is for you. On the other hand, if you think you might like to entertain some o that eternity...you're going to have to read between the lines. The would-be facts before you...it's only smoke and mirrors.

Until she replies to what she is seeking, you are just wasting your breath.
I believe in starting with basics.

 

[dlamberth]

Post #633, you said "Yes, that would work for me."

Go back and read the whole post for a fuller explanation.

.

 

[dlamberth]

This presents a great opportunity (thanks, and sorry for hijacking) to say...that ALL those would-be realities simply exist WITHIN the same illusion...and have simply made it there own.

Sometimes that's true. But often times the reverse is also true where folks have escaped the illusion of this physical world only to have awakened to the experience of things as they truly are, outside of the illusion.

The proof, of course, is that if they were in their so called different reality and you knocked them off their prayer rug...they all would fall into the same reality, the one that we're actually in.

My studies of the mystics from the various spiritual traditions has brought me to the firm belief that the human being is a multidimensional being. Which, from that perspective, begs the question: Which reality are we actually in and what is the "true" reality? This brings us back to the discussion of consciousness and self-consciousness from an other thread. Something I've wonder about is the super-awakened consciousness of Christ and what that might be like to experience?

The only reality other than this one that we all make our own by our denominations, etc....is not only extra physical, but extra natural...supernatural.

Good point. This is a point of interest, conjecture, and inner experience of many religious and spiritual traditions through out history and the world. Many of those traditions have various ways of bringing their followers to a place where they are able to taste the delights of the Divine Center of Being.

The only question I have for you has to do with your perception of "supernatural". Are we talking about the same thing, but using different words?

.

 

[dlamberth]

My position is not on the table here, ...

The instant the position of another is questioned, the position of the one doing the questioning IS on the table. That's just the nature of things.

.

 

[dlamberth]

I do not know what the word "spiritual" means, ....

Being that your in a spiritual forum, it might be a good idea to find out.


.

 

[dlamberth]

I'd like to know who you would consider to be amongst the "wackos" in this regard.

Just to be clear, some would consider me "wacko". And I'm way OK with that.

.

 

[ScottA]

The only question I have for you has to do with your perception of "supernatural". Are we talking about the same thing, but using different words?

Perhaps. Not sure just what you are referring to, I consider the divine center experiences to be a form of self-center, rather than divine center. Certainly we are complex enough for that...but because we are still present in body, it all cannot be called extra human or supernatural. Supernatural, by definition exists on another plane. Biblically, that means separated by an impassible "gulf."

 

[dlamberth]

Perhaps. Not sure just what you are referring to, I consider the divine center experiences to be a form of self-center, rather than divine center. Certainly we are complex enough for that...but because we are still present in body, it all cannot be called extra human or supernatural. Supernatural, by definition exists on another plane. Biblically, that means separated by an impassible "gulf."

Hopefully I choose the right words so that I make sense. What I was looking at when I chose the words "Divine Center of Being" is that inner area where the soul a man is touched by God and incarnates as Christ.

.

 

[Davian]

Reality as we know it in this world, is like the pixelated unreality of cyberspace or an animated movie.

Perhaps you just need to have your prescription checked.

The cartoon characters can all sit around and speculate, even do experiments, bleed real pixelated blood, everything....but it's not really real. The word is unreal, created, or contrived.

So reality is unreal. Do word definitions really trouble you so?

Reality, here in the world, is only debatable, among the characters here: Pixel reality in Pixelland. It's all just a close-circuit...or we could debate the existence of a Supergeek, the big "G" in the sky

Debate is a notorious poor method for the exploration of how things actually are.

If you only care to believe in what you see in Pixelland...carry on.

I care to believe as few untrue things as possible. Yourself?

 

[dlamberth]

I care to believe as few untrue things as possible.

Are you prepared to believe that the whole of the physical universe is an illusion and that reality lies elsewhere?

.

 

[Davian]

Ah, why? Got it. Because only "one" thing is actually true, but there are many tales.

Are we back to only one "reality"?

As for how I might determine which is which? Well, I tried some, blew off some, crashed and burned, cried out...and now I believe the one who answered, the One who saved me.

Some? I am asking about all of them. Not just the thousand so religions and gods, but Bigfoot, extraterrestrial aliens, Loch Ness monsters - do you think them all real?

Scientific methodology is great, nothing against it, all for it. It's just that it is limited to space, time, and matter...and life offers SO MUCH more.

I have see to see you substantiate this assertion.

If you are having trouble computing more than one reality, that is because you are considering only one [worldly] context.

Are we back to multiple realities? How do you know this? Never-mind, I know you can only assert this stuff.

But, I must confess, though I speak of more than one reality...it isn't true. There is indeed only one...but it is the one in which the "common" one was created...and the common one is no more real than a Disney movie (it's just cyberspace, pixelation...it's contrived).

Back to one reality. This gets confusing.

Not following your false dichotomy explanation.

I am referring to each instance where you have implied that the issue is with me, or my position, or what I am thinking, or with "science", and not with you. Even if there was fault with any of that, it would not automatically substantiate any of your assertions.

As for the possibility of imagining what I have experienced, no, the experience showed greater falsehood existing in the world, while showing ultimate truth beyond the world. SEX is a good example you approach it as if it had cooties, then with stars in your eyes, then...what the hell was I thinking?

So you can't be wrong. Good to know now that this discussion is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Davian]

Reality is what IS true, just not what is believed to be true.

that would be common usage of the word.

If you want to call this unreality something...there is already a word for it: creation.

So reality is unreality. Confusing.

In the big book on redefining the words, this is called "the renewing of your mind."

I was thinking more along the lines of bovine excrement.

They thought of everything.

They who?

The demonstration of my claims is the world...and, yes, it is to be retracted.

Finally.

The unseen spiritual realm is what is real,

What does "spiritual" mean?

in which the visible world was born (created) to demonstrate the greater truth,

"Truth", as in religious opinion?

while culling out that which are not interested in the spiritual existence.

What does "spiritual" mean?

If you are not interested in perfection, in everlasting life, in justice, then this world, and this world alone, is for you.

I am interested in believing as few untrue things as possible.

On the other hand, if you think you might like to entertain some o that eternity...you're going to have to read between the lines.

Why?

The would-be facts before you...it's only smoke and mirrors.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Do you think that a philosophy forum is an appropriate venue for preaching?

 

[Davian]

Until she

She?

replies to what she is seeking, you are just wasting your breath.
I believe in starting with basics.

I seek accurate descriptions of reality.

 

[Davian]

Go back and read the whole post for a fuller explanation.

.

Then I have no idea of what you mean by the word "reality".

 

[Davian]

The instant the position of another is questioned, the position of the one doing the questioning IS on the table. That's just the nature of things.

.

No, it isn't.

 

[Davian]

Being that your in a spiritual forum, it might be a good idea to find out.


.

Actually, we are in a philosophy forum, that has the following statement of purpose:

Philosophy of religion is a philosophical study of religion which seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, including the nature and existence of God, rather than examining or arguing against the theology of a particular belief system. The philosophy of religion is rational, critical thought and exploration of general religious themes and concepts. Philosophy of religion is focused on investigating religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.

 

[Davian]

Are you prepared to believe that the whole of the physical universe is an illusion and that reality lies elsewhere?

.

If provided with compelling evidence to that effect, I would make every effort to prepare myself for that.

Got anything? No?

 

[ScottA]

Hopefully I choose the right words so that I make sense. What I was looking at when I chose the words "Divine Center of Being" is that inner area where the soul a man is touched by God and incarnates as Christ.

.

Yes, words are tricky, confused by God himself actually.

The problem I see there is that "incarnate" describes God coming in the flesh as Christ...but that flesh dies, and we [in the flesh] die with him in the crucifixion. So rather than God coming in the flesh as us...he would have to come in the Spirit, in us...meaning, that just as the scriptures say, "It is not we who now live, but Christ in us."