RE: "How do I know God exists?" - the first step to atheism
February 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm by genkaus.)
Here we go again.
Are you kidding me? You are the universe?
The universe refers to the sum total everything that exists. To say that you are the universe, means to say that you are the only thing that exists. That view is extreme solipism.
No, "something other" may simply mean that you are a part of the universe that's experiencing a part of the universe. As identities go, yours is separate from, but not independent of the universe.
Go learn the philosophy first before misrepresenting it. The "tat" in the statement refers to the human soul (atman), which is a part of or which arises from the universal soul (brahman), but it is certainly not the same as it.
You clearly have no idea what the "law of identity" is.
A part of something is not the same as a whole. And the property which applied to the part, need not apply to the whole.
If you were the universe having the experience, then your consciousness would be universal and there would be nothing within the universe that you would not know. That is obviously false and you continue to prove it with every post.
So, you are a simply a part of the universe that is simply experiencing itself. Since the part does not experience the whole, the knowledge gained by the part is limited. Or in your case, virtually non-existent.
A very specific configuration, yes.
We could, if we ever found the part of the brain that houses consciousness.
Which is why we need a very specific configuration. The ability to have experience is an emergent property. If you continue to look at atoms with a reductionist approach rather than taking in the configuration holistically, you'd never understand it.
You are the one looking at things reductionally. You think that a thing is nothing more than the sum of its parts and if you can't find a particular property (consciousness) in the part, you assume that the whole wouldn't have it either. So when you can't find any evidence for consciousness in the atoms, you assume the whole "spiritual essence" crap.
You have to look at things holistically and understand that there is such a thing as an emergent property that cannot be found in the parts but is the result of the whole.
And the rest of the world laughs at them.
You do know that the very premise eastern mysticism is denial of reality.
So you are saying, in effect, that the only approach that makes sense is the one that denies the very existence of any sense.
(February 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All I need to do is recognize that I am this universe being aware of itself. And that is blatantly obvious. In fact, the only way that could not be true is if I was something other than the universe experiencing itself.
Are you kidding me? You are the universe?
The universe refers to the sum total everything that exists. To say that you are the universe, means to say that you are the only thing that exists. That view is extreme solipism.
(February 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But wait a minute! If I'm something other than the universe experiencing itself that very concept would require that I be something other than this universe! In other words, that very idea would force an idea of an external 'soul' that does not belong to this universe.
No, "something other" may simply mean that you are a part of the universe that's experiencing a part of the universe. As identities go, yours is separate from, but not independent of the universe.
(February 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: When when it comes to this Eastern Mystical picture of "God", where the idea is "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are it". Then it becomes crystal clear that I not only know that God exists, but I am that very being.
Go learn the philosophy first before misrepresenting it. The "tat" in the statement refers to the human soul (atman), which is a part of or which arises from the universal soul (brahman), but it is certainly not the same as it.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're the one who is attempting to suggest that we are something other than the universe experiencing itself. Therefore it's up to you to describe and prove the existence of something other than this universe.
You clearly have no idea what the "law of identity" is.
A part of something is not the same as a whole. And the property which applied to the part, need not apply to the whole.
If you were the universe having the experience, then your consciousness would be universal and there would be nothing within the universe that you would not know. That is obviously false and you continue to prove it with every post.
So, you are a simply a part of the universe that is simply experiencing itself. Since the part does not experience the whole, the knowledge gained by the part is limited. Or in your case, virtually non-existent.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: A specific temporary configuration of stardust?Yes.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And what are you suggesting is having that experience? The stardust itself?
A very specific configuration, yes.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You can't very well point to a few atoms that make up your brain and say, "They are me! That is what is having this experience."
We could, if we ever found the part of the brain that houses consciousness.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Atoms can't have an experience. So how could you be a mere clump of atoms having an experience?
Which is why we need a very specific configuration. The ability to have experience is an emergent property. If you continue to look at atoms with a reductionist approach rather than taking in the configuration holistically, you'd never understand it.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Clearly there is something deeper going on. Something far more mystical than the western reductionist approach to physics could ever hope to uncover.
You are the one looking at things reductionally. You think that a thing is nothing more than the sum of its parts and if you can't find a particular property (consciousness) in the part, you assume that the whole wouldn't have it either. So when you can't find any evidence for consciousness in the atoms, you assume the whole "spiritual essence" crap.
You have to look at things holistically and understand that there is such a thing as an emergent property that cannot be found in the parts but is the result of the whole.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The Eastern Mystics are having belly rolls laughing at the silliness of western scientists. western reductionist approach to physics could ever hope to uncover.
And the rest of the world laughs at them.
(February 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The holistic approach of the Eastern Mystics is truly the only was to make sense of reality.
So Eastern Mysticism wins hands down.
You do know that the very premise eastern mysticism is denial of reality.
So you are saying, in effect, that the only approach that makes sense is the one that denies the very existence of any sense.
