Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Pachomius

What do you mean by this phrase from your mind: "objective consensual-reality"?

That's something you can look up.

I don't think that Nothin and I have reached a consensus yet as to what "objective consensual-reality" is. So any comments by me do not reflect the views of Nothin.

Consensus reality is related to, but distinct from, consensual reality. The difference between these terms is that whereas consensus reality describes a state of mutual agreement about what is true (consensus is a noun), consensual reality describes a type of agreement about what is true (consensual is an adjective). In other words, reality may also be non-consensual, as when one person's preferred version of reality conflicts with another person's preferred version of reality. Consensual reality is relevant to understanding a variety of social phenomena, such as deception.
Consensus_reality#Consensus_vs._consensual_reality

There used to be a definition of consensual reality which meant: That reality which can be experienced by the use of more than one of the senses. Like the saying goes, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and causes pain to your hand when it bites like a duck, then your senses concur that it is real."

Okay, everyone, don't waste time and labor with lots of verbiage that is not to the topic, God exists or not.


I am asking you everyone to get to work together as to simply concur among ourselves, so no need to be so extremely queasy - as though you are going to get Covid-19 virus, if you and I we all work together to concur on something, like that you and I we exist, okay? Or you and I we all have a nose on our face?


Tell you what, let you be the one's to ask me anyone among you posting here, that we all work together as to concur on something we all want or need to concur on, okay?


And please, no need to comment on my posts, text by text, no need, just go straight to the most important lines that are linked to the issue God exists or not - unless some people are paying you on the amount of words you write.



Okay, I am waiting for anyone to bring up something he cares for, that we all work together to concur on.

Do it like this, start with addressing all but in particular Pachomius:

"Will you everyone here in partricular Pachomius work together, as to succeed on (put here the something) you want everyone (including yourself) to work as to concur on - at least on its meaning if not its being in existence."



Dear readers, let us all sit back and await with bated breath the reactions or replies of my fellow posters here

.

a reply to: Pachomius

You don’t want to work together. You want to enforce your dogma definition of god that is your faith and your religion. While ignoring valid input from people much more spiritual than you. Your like the Sadducees.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

You don’t want to work together. You want to enforce your dogma definition of god that is your faith and your religion. While ignoring valid input from people much more spiritual than you. Your like the Sadducees.

You see, dear Neutron, you keep avoiding to present your concept of God, why?


Dear readers, notice that Neutron is getting personal against me, instead of sticking to the issue God exists or not.


At least, dear Neutron, come forth with your concept of God, your version of - or you don't have any concept of God at all, in which case how do you pray to your God?


You tell me, I am "ignoring valid input from people much more spiritual than you (me)."


Okay, then you give me one input from people including yourself on the subject God exists or not.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

You see, dear Neutron, you keep avoiding to present your concept of God, why?

Oh. Why bother if your going to crap on what people post in earnest?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

You

I see that you all wrongly conflate God with religion, you can have religion without God.

And you can have God without religion.

Really?

I don’t think this post was about religion?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

The alternative is natural selection with the terms evil and good having absolutely no meaning.

Example: no god. Hitler was just practicing his dominance in a process of natural selection where the term evil has no meaning.

So the starting question is really, “do you believe an act can be good or evil, and why?”

First reply?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Pachomius

perhaps you may want to start the convo?

I'll give ya a shove... No one can prove the existence of God to another...

Nothing about religion?

2nd reply?

originally posted by: seedofchucky
a reply to: Akragon

Well there is that 1 way . That cheat of theology . Messengers with miracles. Easily proves existence of god . Everyone watches dead man rise , or blind see , or handicap walk .. Its game over. Sign me up !~ But do we get that today ? noo.....we gotta play the pick the right cup game lol

Nothing about religion?

Fourth reply?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I think you'll need to define what you think God encompasses.

From my upbringing and personal philosophy, God existed before the universe began. He exists outside reality as we know it, can walk into and out of the universe the way an architect can walk in and out of a building he designed, has fundamental understanding and manipulation of the entirety of the universe because He designed it from the start, and thinks in ways beyond human comprehension.

So good luck with that.

What religion is this?

—————————————————
The title of YOUR thread:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

Which has nothing to do with “ You see, dear Neutron, you keep avoiding to present your concept of God”

Your “concept” is independent of the reality if god actually exists or not.

I have the “concept” I am a millionaire. But In reality I don’t have the USD.

You can believe in the concept of fire breathing dragons when in reality there is zero evidence any are alive.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

Now. The question of god, for me, starts with the question of evil. Is good and evil real? Or hollow beliefs meaningless in the context of natural selection?

What do you say?


————————
Now. I believe my God is the source of goodness and moral authority.

How am I wrong.

The greater good can appear evil.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The greater good can appear evil.

Why “collective salvation” is dangerous...

a reply to: Pachomius
Existence is the state of being alive or being real. Definition of God is "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity"

Are you trying to convince us that you have proof that God is alive and real? If I was to say that the Easter bunny is real I am sure that would require evidence to support the statement. We all know that there is no evidence to support any superhuman or spirit in existence so we await your undeniable evidence......

originally posted by: Pachomius

Dear Nothin, can you comprehend these words from me? Below.

From the concept in our mind of God, we go forth into the world outside and independent of our mind, to seek for evidence pointing us to the existence and operation of God, yes in the world outside and independent of our mind, the world as like our neighborhood and our working environment - start from there.

Dear Nothin, relay my words above in your very own words, to tell readers that you do comprehend my above paragraph, okay?

Hi Pacho.

Will try and write that sentence, in my words :

Holding a concept of God in our minds, we shall look to objective consensual-reality, where we shall look for evidence, that may indicate existence, or the workings, of God, within this objective consensual-reality.

Good, except:

What do you mean by this phrase from your mind: "objective consensual-reality"?

It is my attempt to express the same idea, as your ideas of : “The world outside, and independent of our minds” .
Also: you provided two examples, being the neighborhood, and the workplace.

Would the natural world also be included in your view ?

My choice of the word ‘objective’ : is to take the subjective filters off, so as to see what is “Independent”, of my own personal mind, views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc…
The word ‘Objective’, used in this sense, is usually seen to mean that a majority of people could agree upon a description, or explanation, of whatever it was being looked at.

My choice of the term ‘Consensual reality’ : is a way of describing the common and standardly held views, of the entirety of this ‘supposed’ reality.
Using this term, eliminates my own personal views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc… , about whatever may diverge from the commonly held views.

By using the term : "objective consensual-reality" ; we can hopefully eliminate particular views from a smaller group, or individual, and get a larger, overall view.
It is an attempt to describe the reality that seems to exist around us, in a simple way that we can come to a consensus agreement about.
What most people ‘think’ is real.

Please note : that am bypassing any personal convictions, views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc…
And am kinda expecting that you will do the same.

Ex : If you recall : did not personally agree with your statement : “ You and I we exist “.
But in "objective consensual-reality", as well as “The world outside, and independent of our minds” : Would agree that you and I we exist.

Again : this is per your request, and not my own personal convictions, views, ideas, opinions, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc…
So me agreeing with you about anything within this context, does not mean that there is agreement outside of this agreed-upon thought-experiment.

And as a side note, for all of the new fans of my old buddy Ewen Oiwy : he’s doing fine, thanks.

a reply to: Nothin

Please note : that am bypassing any personal convictions, views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc…
And am kinda expecting that you will do the same.

That, which you describe, is the actual author of the graffiti.
In my experience that person can only exist independently for a short time (perhaps what you mean by within "this agreed-upon thought-experiment").

You can read a brief description of the existential crisis which ensued Here.

For clarification I will refer you to a wikipedia reference to Turner.

Turner posits that, if liminality is regarded as a time and place of withdrawal from normal modes of social action, it potentially can be seen as a period of scrutiny for central values and axioms of the culture where it occurs.[20]—one where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are undone. In such situations, "the very structure of society [is] temporarily suspended"[21]

'According to Turner, all liminality must eventually dissolve, for it is a state of great intensity that cannot exist very long without some sort of structure to stabilize it...either the individual returns to the surrounding social structure...or else liminal communities develop their own internal social structure, a condition Turner calls "normative communitas"'.
Liminality: Victor_Turner

This thread is going on too long for any participant to maintain that sort of objectivity. But some participants, catching ideas and/or questions have spun off to start their own threads. There is a thread about guilt now which may be one of the spin offs.

And as a side note, for all of the new fans of my old buddy Ewen Oiwy : he’s doing fine, thanks.

Please give him my regards.

If he doesn't drink then you can drink the tea yourself.

[ quote]originally posted by: Nothin
[ quote]originally posted by: Pachomius


[ . . . ]

Pachomius says: From the concept in our mind of God, we go forth into the world outside and independent of our mind, to seek for evidence pointing us to the existence and operation of God, yes in the world outside and independent of our mind, the world as like our neighborhood and our working environment - start from there.

[ . . . ]

Nothin says: Using this term (Consensual reality), eliminates my own personal views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc… , about whatever may diverge from the commonly held views.


[ . . . ]

.[ /quote]




"Nothin says: Using this term (Consensual reality), eliminates my own personal views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc… , about whatever may diverge from the commonly held views."


Dear Nothin, what's wrong with your "own personal views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc…"?


Are you suffering some kind of extreme self inadequacy as to give up your self honest intelligent productive thinking altogether, so as to say enslave your heart and mind to "commonly held views"?


That is most discrediting on your part against your very own if any talent for honest intelligent productive thinking and writing.



Dear readers, what do we have here? But so-called homines sapientes who turn out to be so self deficient, as to not do any self honest intelligent productive thinking at all, but instead just following blindly the stampeding herd of human cattle?




Okay, to every poster here, from your stock knowledge and employing your honest intelligent productive thinking, present your concept of God, even though you don't believe there is any God, or you don't accept my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."



Cease and desist already from self-enslavement to "commonly held views."

.

a reply to: Pachomius

Naming is the source of all particular things. Tao Te Ching.

Remove all naming and what remains?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Pachomius

Naming is the source of all particular things. Tao Te Ching.

Remove all naming and what remains?

Sounds similar to, 'In the beginning was the word' although both statements are flawed without further clarification.

Things in themselves don't have to be named in order to exist. The naming is not the source. And the 'word' did not exist without that which utters said word so it can't have been the beginning.

So the use of the words 'source' and 'beginning' are being used in a particular context that can't be overlooked.

a reply to: Pachomius

Have a read of this:
www.shantisadan.org...

It may show a different concept of what God is.

a reply to: midicon
What if there is just what there is?

The assumption is there are separate things.

Words seem to divide the whole into bits.

a reply to: midicon
No thing is doing anything....no thing uttered anything.

What is is being what it is.

The belief in two 'something' doing 'something'......is not true.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: midicon
What if there is just what there is?

What else could there be?

The assumption is there are separate things.

It's not an assumption, it's how we perceive reality. It may be that everything is connected at some level (like quantum) but of what use is that knowledge as we live our everyday lives and navigate through what appears to be the external world?

Words seem to divide the whole into bits.

Words can divide but they can also unite. Where would we be without words? I'll tell you. We'd be the same as all the other animals, living in the present with no thought of tomorrow.

[ quote]originally posted by: midicon
[ quote]originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Pachomius



Naming is the source of all particular things. Tao Te Ching.

Remove all naming and what remains?


[ /quote]


Sounds similar to, 'In the beginning was the word' although both statements are flawed without further clarification.

Things in themselves don't have to be named in order to exist. The naming is not the source. And the 'word' did not exist without that which utters said word so it can't have been the beginning.

So the use of the words 'source' and 'beginning' are being used in a particular context that can't be overlooked.

[ /quote]




Very good! mdicon.


Words represent concepts in our mind, and concepts in our mind represent objects outside and independent of our mind.

From the word/concept in our mind of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, we go forth into the world that is outside and independent of our mind, to seek evidence of God's existence.

We come to babies and roses in the neighborhood, there, they are the evidence proving the existence of God, God corresponding to the concept in our mind of the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Now atheists will complain that my proof above is just circular reasoning, and that is where they are very bad with honest intelligent productive thinking, because I do not just stay with words and concepts in my mind - that would be circular reasoning - in my mind, but I go forth into the world outside my mind, and I come to babies and roses in the neighborhood, there, they are the evidence proving the existence of God, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

.

Okay, everyone, have I told you everyone that my God is what I might call the generic God, generic as with generic medicines compared to branded medicines.


Here is my concept of God, God (in concept) is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

When people like Neutron want to make God the judge of good or evil in man's acts, then they are into a branded God, and that is the cause of endless conflicts among them, on who is the true God - hahahahahaha!

My generic God is the minimal God Who is however indispensable to the branded Gods of people like Neutron.


You see people like Neutron with their branded Gods, if they don't have the concept of God as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, I will be the first to tell such God(s):

"Stop talking and appearing cute, get busy, do creation of man and the universe and everything with a beginning!"


Hahaha, folks like Neutron, they are going into apoplexy, careful dear folks like Neutron and Neutron himself, take it easy, you might get a heart attack or a stroke.

.

originally posted by: Pachomius

Dear Nothin, what's wrong with your "own personal views, ideas, opinions, observations, thoughts, beliefs, concepts, culture, etc…"?

Uhhhmmm : nothin ?
Your request was for us to go-to : ..."...the world outside and independent of our mind..."...
Why did you not recognize that as some sort of misunderstanding, and make an attempt to clear it up : instead of reacting the way you did ?
Can you explain : ..."...the world outside and independent of our mind..."... ; in a different way than : objectively ?

Are you suffering some kind of extreme self inadequacy as to give up your self honest intelligent productive thinking altogether, so as to say enslave your heart and mind to "commonly held views"?

That is most discrediting on your part against your very own if any talent for honest intelligent productive thinking and writing.

Was responding to your request : You asked me to create a mirror of your own words, then when it was shown-back to you ; you pointed and called it ugly !
That's kinda funny, in an unfortunate way !! LoL !!

Dear readers, what do we have here? But so-called homines sapientes who turn out to be so self deficient, as to not do any self honest intelligent productive thinking at all, but instead just following blindly the stampeding herd of human cattle?

Okay, to every poster here, from your stock knowledge and employing your honest intelligent productive thinking, present your concept of God, even though you don't believe there is any God, or you don't accept my concept of God, namely:

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."

Cease and desist already from self-enslavement to "commonly held views." .

Rrroohhh-K ! !

Ahem !
God is label, created by Humans, to express their own personal view/ idea/ opinion/ observation/ thought/ belief/ concept, in an attempt to explain : the Divine/All/ , or 'a feeling that all of us have, but is beyond words'.

That's my attempt, and stands as long as the sun is up today.