Sunmaster

9 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

 

How would consciousness constitute evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or deity?

It doesn't. In fact I don't subscribe to the notion of a supernatural being or deity. 
I believe that by following consciousness to its source, you can find all the evidence you'll ever need. How can you find it? By practicing self-inquiry. That's all there is.
Nothing supernatural about it. Quite the contrary....nothing more natural than consciousness. I have it, you have it, everyone has it.
The idea of a personal God is, in my opinion, just a stepping stone to the realization that God and you (and all of us, and everything) are ultimately the same thing.

15 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

Theists are always free to present any empirical evidence and/or a priori metaphysical arguments in support of their belief in a supernatural sky monarch.

 

Arguing "evidence exists - you're simply unable to see or understand it" is just a disingenuous way of conceding that you don't really have any evidence to present.

I'm not a theist and am as far removed from a "sky monarch" as you are. 
The only evidence I could point to is consciousness. 

 

1 minute ago, fusion58 said:

 

The burden of proof rests solely on the claimant or the believer.

Well, you claimed you can't see the food that I can see. What makes you think that your vision is more accurate than mine? How is your vision the measuring staff upon all other visions have to be compared to? 
 

43 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

In the restaurant there's actual food. You are talking about something in your mind that you think is a thing.  Imagine someone saying they are tasting something so yummy but there's nothing in front of them to see. You might then question, admonish, or ridicule.  So if you believe something and wish to talk about it you have to cop it as a reasonable thing to be criticised when nothing can be seen on the table. 

You assume that because you can't see it, it isn't there.

Yes, you may question the reason why you can't see it, but that doesn't give you the right to criticize or ridicule them. Maybe all the people sitting at that table see the same food he sees and wonder why the hell you can't see it. ;-)
 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Here I can trace some of the ideas you express in your writings to a few of the meanings ascribed to Advaita.

• Nonduality of subject and object.  As Gaudapada states, when a distinction is made between subject and object, people grasp to objects, which is samsara. By realizing one's true identity as Brahman, there is no more grasping, and the mind comes to rest.
•  Monism: there is no other reality than Brahman, that "Reality is not constituted by parts," that is, ever-changing 'things' have no existence of their own, but are appearances of the one Existent, Brahman; and that there is in reality no duality between the "experiencing self" (jiva) and Brahman, the Ground of Being.

Sounds about right.

- Non-duality. So far I couldn't find a contradiction with Seth's material. If you could point out specific arguments, I'd be grateful.
- Everchanging things have no existence on their own. Seth says the same thing. What appears to be solid is essentially a thought form where energy-consciousness passes through. But the same goes for "things" that are not solid, like the ego. The ego only appears to be real as long as the wind of consciousness fills its sails. 
If something (A) is only real as long as something else (B) gives it existence, then the logic conclusion is that that something else (B) is a necessity for the existence of (A). The ego (and with it all the material world) cannot exist without consciousness, but consciousness doesn't need the ego to exist. This is what is meant with Brahman being the ultimate reality. 

I don't subscribe to Advaita Vedanta as my sole source or map. In fact, after your research, you probably know more about it than I do. What I can see is that it offers a very practical and logical framework, with which it is possible to understand your true identity. It does so through self-inquiry and logical deduction. 
But it is only one of the maps that I use. 
One of the first and most helpful maps I encountered was Spiral Dynamics as presented by Ken Wilber. A great way to describe and categorize human and societal levels of development. It really helped me to understand many dynamics in society, but also in my own.
Another map was Kriya Yoga provided by Paramhamsa Yogananda, who taught me how far the love for the Divine can go and how important daily practice is.
Another map was Seth's material. I love the "no BS" approach, but to say that even a child could understand it, is a bit too much. 55. I often have to re-read entire paragraphs because of the over-convoluted sentences. Your writing style is very similar. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I do like it very much.
At one point I may have thought Spiral Dynamics was the best, or Kriya Yoga was the best or Advaita is the best. And they were. For me, at that time. They provided directions for places I was in at that particular time. Was one "The Best"? Of course not. 

Most of your reply is yet another love letter to Seth. I get it, it's a great map. But it's still only a map, not the territory. The territory has to be experienced, there are no 2 ways around it.
That's why I asked that 3rd question. 
Without the direct experience of the territory, any map, as precise and beautiful as they may appear, is completely useless. 
I'm sure Seth would agree. 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

But the connecting part of this purpose of religion is not meant for the purpose of moving towards that portion of ourselves, which we now become aware of, by escaping our existence here.

Where do you get this notion from? Where do you see the "escaping our existence"?

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now it's only self evident and purely logical that if the purpose of religion is as I stated above then there would certainly be a number of commonalities between religion view of us and our reality and what Seth' view of it.  But as every religion contains distortions then any of those distortions will instantly be at loggerheads with the reality Seth offers.  That is only self evident and purely logical as well.

Advaita can not be considered to be a religion. It is more of a practical philosophy. Your belief is that all maps have distortions, except Seth's map. I think the very nature of a map is to have distortions, including Seth's. The only way to find out how many distortions and to what degree, is to walk the territory yourself. 

Before I started to meditate regularly, I looked into TM (Transcendental Meditation). The reason why I ultimately steered away from it, was the constant shilling of its members. "TM is the fastest, the best, bla bla..." To me it sounded just like what bible thumpers always say. Here lies the danger of elevating the map over the territory itself. And that's also the reason why I always ask for YOUR opinion, not Seth's.

 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Advaita Vedānta and Seth's explanation of who we are and what our reality is are ultimately incompatible and the differences irreconcilable.  We can agree on the commonalities of Advaita Vedānta and the Seth material but on the differences we will never be able to.  We can only ever agree to disagree. 

This we haven't established yet. Where you see irreconcilable differences, I see only not yet recognized commonalities. 
The free will argument comes to my mind. Some say it exists. Some say it doesn't. They are seemingly opposite propositions, irreconcilable.....until you include them in a bigger framework.

Then both become true. 

35 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

I think an idiot is someone who resents an opposing view on a thread asking all about their beliefs, opens a new thread to troll those people, then gets upset when they troll him!

"resents an opposing view" LOL
We've been discussing religion, spirituality, atheism and whatnot with all sorts of people for several years now. No resentment there.
The bother starts when someone "joins" the conversation with the sole intent on disrupting it and disrespecting the member's beliefs. 
Imagine going to an opera, but there you insist on playing ghetto rap on your boom box. They will throw you out, correct? There is a place and a time for everything.

Get your facts straight, Old Croc.
 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Question:  Is it logic or philosophy upon which your arguments are based?

Both and more.

First and formost direct experience, without which the arguments would be devoid of any real substance. This is then put into concepts and words with the help of logically structured philosophy.

More later. Ciao

4 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Much, much wiser people than me have answered that question already, and much better than I ever will.

 

My point exactly. And what I said in my post.

If I want to ponder questions of the existence of god I won't be looking to ASEANNOW.

See ya.

No, let's be honest here. It's not what you said at all. Your comment implied I had the audacity to answer a question to which you don't know the answer to. 

But no problem. I will sleep well regardless whether you read the actual posts or not.

See ya.

11 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

"the first time it was asked, I gave a proper answer"

 

This is known as the "unshakeable certainty of the half educated".

Who would have the combination of ignorance and egotism that would allow them to think they had given "a proper answer" to a problem that has been discussed by humanity's greatest minds for centuries.

Oh yeah, a guy in a discussion group about SE Asia travel and visa problems.

Take a deep breath and before you jump to conclusions, head over to the other thread, take some time reading through a few pages, and after that join the discussion if you feel like.
BTW, the "proper answer" meant I answered in a civil manner to the best of my knowledge, as opposed to answering a troll question with a troll answer. Much, much wiser people than me have answered that question already, and much better than I ever will. If you or the rest of the world have not stumbled upon them, it's got nothing to do with me.

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

 

so you're saying God controls everything?

you assume that human behavior has nothing to do with anything?

 

if someone gets killed in a drunk driving accident, did God "allow it" or did the person get behind the wheel drunk cause it? 

 

most bad things are being done by people, aren't they?

 

Sorry @save the frogs, I'm not splitting between this and the other thread. This here was meant as a lighthearted joke and hopefully get rid of the trolls on the other one.
And for this reason I will stop posting here and leave the asylum to the inmates, so to speak.

15 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Okay, fine.  Play that game.

 

Atheists are asking religious people, not necessarily "you".

 

Out.

There are no religious people posting in the "God thread" at the moment (in all the thread's history (3-4 years), I actually remember only 2 or 3 bible thumpers), only openminded people discussing life. So, if atheists have that particular question, they should ask religious people. OR, they could ask that question in a respectful and sincere manner, without resorting to trolling. In fact, the first time it was asked, I gave a proper answer, but that was obviously ignored in favor of more trolling. 

4 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

OK so you were lying when pretending not to know.

Typical of religious apologists, unable to have an honest discussion.

 

It's not trolling.

Google "the problem of evil" and dozens of serious topics are returned.

 

Again, typical of religious apologists, trying to rig the game by declaring a topic off limits for discussion.

It puts a bug up your behind because there is no satisfactory, honest answer.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. But if it makes you happy, it's fine by me.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

I'm not talking about this board. I'm talking about the mere existence of tens of thousands of cretins who believe that God sent Trump to do his work.

Weren't you the one professing the woke inclusiveness in another thread? A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The OP might specify which monotheistic version he prefers - Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

 

Again, I'm not religious and have no preference.

1 minute ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Not exactly.

 

Atheists are asking why YOU believe your particular deity "acts" a certain way in your particular fables.

 

It's like asking why Voldemort doesn't just do X to cause Y to happen to Harry Potter.  They're discussing the actions of fictional characters in a story.

 

It's your story, so they want you to explain the inconsistencies.

 

Asking a muslim how come the moon is a solid sphere if Mohammad rode a winged horse into space and split it in two.  But in this case, at least there's evidence of an actual Mohammad, if not flying horses or sliced moon cheese.

Not my story, not my religion. 
I don't follow any religion, yet I'm not an atheist. 
Actually, I don't really like organized religions and their dogmas, but I don't ridicule them. They are necessary for certain people and help them make sense of the world and themselves, and for that they deserve respect. 
Pointing out the obvious shortcomings of certain religions is fair, but without acknowledging also the good sides, is shortsighted and dishonest.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The OP might specify which monotheistic version he prefers - Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

 

IMO it would be somewhat presumptuous to question a purportedly omnipotent being about why they do things.

 

I am looking forward to what AI has to say about the problem of good and evil, given AI can be used for both. Human intelligence does not seem to have got very far with it.

There you go.

30 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

the concepts of religion and god were made at times when humans were dumb... to be blunt.

 

2000 years ago the vast majority of our species couldn't even read or write.

 

so nope as a rational thinking adult i tend to not believe in the big guy in the sky. science has come a long way to putting this to rest. the puzzle is not complete yet and may never be but it gives a much more realistic idea over walking on water and feeding fisherman. 

 

life is cruel hence the bad things happening. an alligator doesn't ask the doe's mother....hey mind if i snack down on your child's neck for din din. we are simply a more evolved species. none the less mammals the same as the rest. 

 

born into a roman catholic family. mom is quite the thumper still. god bless her soul. 

 

 

I would change "most" with "some", but I think the rest is spot on.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I'm not talking about this board. I'm talking about the mere existence of tens of thousands of cretins who believe that God sent Trump to do his work.

Take it up with them then and don't troll an otherwise constructive discussion. 

If you had spent an equal amount of time reading the thread as you've been writing nonsense, you would have quickly found out that none of the regular posters are Christians or even religious at all, me included. 

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's fair game to troll christian nationalists who believe Trump was chosen by God. It's just another reason to reject religion altogether.

Show me one Christian nationalist in that other thread. I beg you.

Any more excuses? 

Anyways, you guys have fun here. 

If anyone is up for a mature discussion, you're welcome to join the conversation in the "God thread", which is NOT just about the personal God of Christianity or religion, but goes far deeper than that. 

Peace

29 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

LOL, you think that was about God or about religious nutcases?

It was a poor troll attempt. You had the choice to either contribute something valuable to the conversation (doesn't matter if you believe or not), or post silly nonsense. 

You chose the latter. At least stand by your decisions. 

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I have never asked a question about whether god did this or that or why? I never would any more than I would ask what the tooth fairy eats.

Oh, you didn't. I must have dreamt it then.

8 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

 

You're distorting the question and I'm pretty sure you know you are.

 

Just in case you are actually confused... when an atheist writes "how come God gives babies disabilities", what they almost certainly mean is "if your God exists, and he is all good,  all knowing and all powerful, how in the world can babies be born with disabilities."

Of course I know. ;-)
It's the intention behind the question that is crucial. They don't want nor expect a proper answer. It's just a way to troll. And what do you do with a stupid troll question? You give a stupid troll answer, of course.

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Atheists aren't the ones writing a letter to santa claus every sunday.

Yet you (and the other atheists) keep asking why God did this or that bad thing. Make up your mind. Do you believe in God or not?
Not that it makes any difference for me personally.