The importance of

[NZEN]

無 is a Japanese word that cannot be translated accurately into english. It can loosely be translated as "Unask the question" or "The question itself is wrong".

無 is used for such questions as "Have you stopped beating your wife?". To answer yes or no would be wrong, and would not create a good impression; The question is based on a potentially flawed premise, as such saying "no" would technically be correct, but would probably be interpreted as admitting to beating one's wife.

The lack of an equivalent to 無 leaves english-speakers unable to fully answer yes or no questions.

無 is the answer to the question "Is God real?". Anyone knows that there are people with contradictory views on God and therefore people who's views on God are false, and false views on God mean a false God.

The correct question is "What is God?"; This question would have many answers depending on who you asked, differences of opinion which, logically, cannot all be simultaneously accepted or rejected by giving the question a "Is God real?" a yes or no answer.

This is a trap many atheists fall into: Rejecting all versions of God because of finding a version of God that isn't convincing.

Someone who has had an NDE (Near-Death-Experience) and not gone to hell will probably say they saw God and God was real and he was radiating intense, unconditional love beyond description and he was shiny.

Reading some of the NDE stories you'll find, you will have 4 logical choices: Believe the God you read about and throw the bible out the window (Figuratively and/or literally speaking), believe this version and try to fit it into the Bible's story, Believe it, and, let's say, leave the Bible where it was (if you didn't believe it beforehand), or reject this version of God and move on to the next one.

Of course, you can eliminate a lot of versions of God at once by saying there's no universal creator, but then there's still things people call God that don't create universes, (Try googling Osho, he's said he was God many times), some say the universe itself is God (Osho included), and some say God is consciousness, meaning we're all God (Osho again).

The funny thing is, Osho also said there was no god, but the point is, I think some things people call God have an existence most people can agree on.

So, there's my opinion for you.

 

[Antarctika]

I think it's interesting to remind that noone has a monopoly on the word "God".

 

[quatona]

This is a trap many atheists fall into: Rejecting all versions of God because of finding a version of God that isn't convincing.

Heck, I could even create my own version. But - would e.g. calling my cat "God" really create a serious problem for strong atheism?

The funny thing is, Osho also said there was no god, but the point is, I think some things people call God have an existence most people can agree on.

Like which things for example, and why call those things "God" instead of using those terms that most people use for them?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is a trap many atheists fall into: Rejecting all versions of God because of finding a version of God that isn't convincing.

No, it isn't. One may reject what isn't supported. If there are versions of God one isn't familiar with, one may still "reject" them because one isn't persuaded by them. No one is obligated to accept that with which one isn't familiar.

Someone who has had an NDE (Near-Death-Experience) and not gone to hell will probably say they saw God and God was real and he was radiating intense, unconditional love beyond description and he was shiny.

Yeah, so?

Reading some of the NDE stories you'll find, you will have 4 logical choices: Believe the God you read about and throw the bible out the window (Figuratively and/or literally speaking), believe this version and try to fit it into the Bible's story, Believe it, and, let's say, leave the Bible where it was (if you didn't believe it beforehand), or reject this version of God and move on to the next one.

No, the first question is to ask: Does the NDE have anything to do with reality? There are many more options than what you suggest.

The funny thing is, Osho also said there was no god, but the point is, I think some things people call God have an existence most people can agree on.

But they are unlikely to agree that this something is a god.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Antarctika]

No, it isn't. One may reject what isn't supported. If there are versions of God one isn't familiar with, one may still "reject" them because one isn't persuaded by them. No one is obligated to accept that with which one isn't familiar.

Isn't there any other option?

I think it's possible to neither be persuaded by a God, nor totally reject it.

(Which is exactly what i'm doing).

 

[Lord Emsworth]

無 is a Japanese word that cannot be translated accurately into english. It can loosely be translated as "Unask the question" or "The question itself is wrong".

無 is used for such questions as "Have you stopped beating your wife?". To answer yes or no would be wrong, and would not create a good impression; The question is based on a potentially flawed premise, as such saying "no" would technically be correct, but would probably be interpreted as admitting to beating one's wife.

The lack of an equivalent to 無 leaves english-speakers unable to fully answer yes or no questions.

Well, the English expressions are complex, or loaded question. See Wiki for both:
Complex question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, how do you pronounce and transliterate "無"?


ETA:

The question is based on a potentially flawed premise, as such saying "no" would technically be correct, but would probably be interpreted as admitting to beating one's wife.

And "No" would NOT be technically correct. This is because the "No" is a short version of "No, I have not stopped beating my wife" with "I have not stopped beating my wife" simply ommitted. This is called ellipsis, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Isn't there any other option?

I think it's possible to neither be persuaded by a God, nor totally reject it.

(Which is exactly what i'm doing).

Actually, no. That's not an option. You either accept an idea or you reject it. You either believe or you don't.

You are falling for the idea that rejecting an idea means rejecting it for all time. There is no need for rejection to be final. It just means that you aren't persuaded right now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Antarctika]

Actually, no. That's not an option. You either accept an idea or you reject it. You either believe or you don't.

You are falling for the idea that rejecting an idea means rejecting it for all time. There is no need for rejection to be final. It just means that you aren't persuaded right now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Maybe it depends on how one defines persuasion, acceptance and rejection.

What I'm telling you is that I'm able to neither reject nor accept an idea, but merely admit it can make sense without having any mean of being certain.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, the English expressions are complex, or loaded question. See Wiki for both:
Complex question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add in Definite description - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's not like English speakers have never considered the problem that natural language isn't a perfect way to discuss math or logic.

 

[quatona]

What I'm telling you is that I'm able to neither reject nor accept an idea, but merely admit it can make sense without having any mean of being certain.

As long as the keyterms lack a proper definition I wouldn´t even know whether it´s an idea at all (even less what an idea it is). It seems to me that the communicator has to match some requirements before I can even be asked or expected to spend a thought on his products.

"dflkgja0 lxskß0 kl." may make sense, but unless the person trying to communicate an idea using this phrase tells me what its components are supposed to mean I don´t even feel tempted to take a stance.

"'God'? What do you mean??" is the first question we should ask when people use this term. It´s been below my username since I have come here.

 

[NZEN]

Like which things for example, and why call those things "God" instead of using those terms that most people use for them?

Try Bhagwan, an indian guru, whose name means "God", literally "The blessed one", who also claimed to be god. Many people agree with him. He also says that everyone and everything is "God", and many people agree with that. He was against all religions including atheism and agnosticism. When ther was a religion named after him, he changed his name to Osho.

 

[quatona]

Try Bhagwan, an indian guru, whose name means "God", literally "The blessed one", who also claimed to be god. Many people agree with him. He also says that everyone and everything is "God", and many people agree with that. He was against all religions including atheism and agnosticism. When ther was a religion named after him, he changed his name to Osho.

I see. Pretty much confirms my point, I think.

 

[NZEN]

I see. Pretty much confirms my point, I think.

Your point being?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Actually, for the near-death, or out of body experiences...


PubMed returns a total of 3 articles relevant to the subject of OBEs.


Tong F. Out-of-body experiences: from Penfield to present. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):104-106.
Blanke O, Ortigue S, Landis T, Seeck M. Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature. 2002 Sep 19;419(6904):269-70.
De Ridder D, Van Laere K, Dupont P, Menovsky T, Van de Heyning P. Visualizing out-of-body experience in the brain. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1829-33.



The first describes two epileptic patients cited by previous case studies. In attempts to identify the loci of the seizures, electrodes were placed onto the brain and various Areas stimulated, and the experience matched to the patients' descriptions of the 'normal' seizures. Both case studies reported that stimulation of the right superior temporal and angular gyri of the patients resulted in an experience remarkably similar to that normally described as an 'out of body experience'.


The second is the actual case study of one of these patients, a 43-year-old woman with complex partial seizures for 11 years.


The third describes a further case report, of a similar process, this time in an attempt to reduce the symptoms of tinnitus. Stimulation in the right superior temporal gyrus of the patient's brain consistently produced a feeling of disembodiment, wherein his 'consciousness' was located roughly 50cm posterior and to the left of his actual body.

These articles show fairly conclusively that while the out-of-body phenomena experienced by people 'in the wild', they can be replicated very closely under laboratory conditions and can be repeatedly elucidated, at least in people with neurophysiological pathology. One of the more popular theories for the natural elucidation of an OBE or NDE could be due to the release of monoamine neurotransmitters, or endogenous opioids such as endorphins in response to pain and/or stress. I don't recall seeing any research on this subject, and given its sensitive nature to many people (especially believers of religions whose proponents claim that OBEs and NDEs are god's way of communicating with individuals) may be hard to have replicated and accepted, but I feel this is important research, both in terms of understanding brain function and in further investigating dualism, an increasingly marginalized and discredited belief though it may be.

Maybe it depends on how one defines persuasion, acceptance and rejection.

What I'm telling you is that I'm able to neither reject nor accept an idea, but merely admit it can make sense without having any mean of being certain.

It is possible (and it is also the best thing to do, when such a circumstance occurs) to neither accept nor reject a claim due to lack of evidence. If the evidence is withheld purposefully to deceive or misguide others into accepting or rejecting an argument prematurely, then this is dishonest, immoral, and almost always unjustifiable.

 

[quatona]

Your point being?

Haven´t you read my post?

 

[juvenissun]

無 is a Japanese word that cannot be translated accurately into english. It can loosely be translated as "Unask the question" or "The question itself is wrong".

無 is used for such questions as "Have you stopped beating your wife?". To answer yes or no would be wrong, and would not create a good impression; The question is based on a potentially flawed premise, as such saying "no" would technically be correct, but would probably be interpreted as admitting to beating one's wife.

The lack of an equivalent to 無 leaves english-speakers unable to fully answer yes or no questions.

無 is the answer to the question "Is God real?". Anyone knows that there are people with contradictory views on God and therefore people who's views on God are false, and false views on God mean a false God.

The correct question is "What is God?"; This question would have many answers depending on who you asked, differences of opinion which, logically, cannot all be simultaneously accepted or rejected by giving the question a "Is God real?" a yes or no answer.

This is a trap many atheists fall into: Rejecting all versions of God because of finding a version of God that isn't convincing.

Someone who has had an NDE (Near-Death-Experience) and not gone to hell will probably say they saw God and God was real and he was radiating intense, unconditional love beyond description and he was shiny.

Reading some of the NDE stories you'll find, you will have 4 logical choices: Believe the God you read about and throw the bible out the window (Figuratively and/or literally speaking), believe this version and try to fit it into the Bible's story, Believe it, and, let's say, leave the Bible where it was (if you didn't believe it beforehand), or reject this version of God and move on to the next one.

Of course, you can eliminate a lot of versions of God at once by saying there's no universal creator, but then there's still things people call God that don't create universes, (Try googling Osho, he's said he was God many times), some say the universe itself is God (Osho included), and some say God is consciousness, meaning we're all God (Osho again).

The funny thing is, Osho also said there was no god, but the point is, I think some things people call God have an existence most people can agree on.

So, there's my opinion for you.

I think you really overloaded this word.
It is a simply word, means: nothing; having not. And it is much less meaningful than the word 佛.

Of course, everyone can make the "nothing" into a version of complicated theology.

 

[NZEN]

I think you really overloaded this word.
It is a simply word, means: nothing; having not. And it is much less meaningful than the word 佛.

Of course, everyone can make the "nothing" into a version of complicated theology.

No, I got my information about it from the wikipedia article for mu (Negative).

 

[juvenissun]

No, I got my information about it from the wikipedia article for mu (Negative).

If you explore the origin of this word, the structure of it says "abundant". But it ended up meaning "nothing".

Would that be enough philosophically? Of course, it does have a practical interpretation on the contrast.

 

[Mling]

While I'll agree that "is God real" is a heavily loaded question--the single, proper noun "God" suggests that there is only one conceivable god and presumes that anybody who would hear the question is in agreement on that, leaving only the question of whether that one god exists or not.

But "What is God?" is even more loaded, the question is even more wrong, because it carries the presumption that something exists which might (or even must?) be called god!

"Do gods exist?" is better, I think, as the plural and the lower case sort of broadens the field of meaning. But it still presupposes that if something or others exist, they are the specific something or others which might or must be called "gods."

I think the question "Does the supernatural/divine exist?" is a good starting place for these sorts of questions, because it leaves open the possibility of divine or spiritual experiences which are not necessarily related to a "god."

As it stands, though, this question is academic to me--my answer to all of them is "no," but for people who might answer some differently, I do think it's important to make it clear what, exactly, a person is claiming exists, or not.

 

[The Paul]

無 is a Japanese word that cannot be translated accurately into english. It can loosely be translated as "Unask the question" or "The question itself is wrong".

無 is used for such questions as "Have you stopped beating your wife?". To answer yes or no would be wrong, and would not create a good impression; The question is based on a potentially flawed premise, as such saying "no" would technically be correct, but would probably be interpreted as admitting to beating one's wife.

The lack of an equivalent to 無 leaves english-speakers unable to fully answer yes or no questions.

無 is the answer to the question "Is God real?". Anyone knows that there are people with contradictory views on God and therefore people who's views on God are false, and false views on God mean a false God.

The correct question is "What is God?"; This question would have many answers depending on who you asked, differences of opinion which, logically, cannot all be simultaneously accepted or rejected by giving the question a "Is God real?" a yes or no answer.

This is a trap many atheists fall into: Rejecting all versions of God because of finding a version of God that isn't convincing.

Someone who has had an NDE (Near-Death-Experience) and not gone to hell will probably say they saw God and God was real and he was radiating intense, unconditional love beyond description and he was shiny.

Reading some of the NDE stories you'll find, you will have 4 logical choices: Believe the God you read about and throw the bible out the window (Figuratively and/or literally speaking), believe this version and try to fit it into the Bible's story, Believe it, and, let's say, leave the Bible where it was (if you didn't believe it beforehand), or reject this version of God and move on to the next one.

Of course, you can eliminate a lot of versions of God at once by saying there's no universal creator, but then there's still things people call God that don't create universes, (Try googling Osho, he's said he was God many times), some say the universe itself is God (Osho included), and some say God is consciousness, meaning we're all God (Osho again).

The funny thing is, Osho also said there was no god, but the point is, I think some things people call God have an existence most people can agree on.

So, there's my opinion for you.

Not at all.

"Is there a God?" is pretty a pretty straightforward yes or no question. People disagree about the answer, but that doesn't change the nature of the question.

All this stuff about other things that aren't God that might exist and people are talking about those instead... most of that is a matter of either mistranslating words to "God" when that's not actually what they mean, or people arbitrarily redefining the word "God" because they don't believe in God but they don't like the word "atheist"