Jan's got guts, that's how he does it.
The irrelevance of God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Jan's got guts, that's how he does it.
Well, there it is.Balerion said:
In my "philosophy" there should be no expectation. The dilemma, if you will, is that you should look, or search, for something.
When you "see" God, the experience will not be what you expected. It will, however, be quite familiar.
At least, that's my experience, and although I shouldn't speak for anyone else, I do know others who have said it's much the same for them.
So now what? Now I expect a certain amount of ridicule, that's what. But, remember, I don't care.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The ball-less noncommittal prevaricators sure look out for each other here...
I think this thread illustrates that discussions about whether God is or isn't irrelevant, are themselves irrelevant.
Nicely recursive and it's also redundant!
Nicely recursive and it's also redundant!
That's not a dilemma. That's like saying "The dilemma, if you will, is an orange." Are you trying to say the dilemma is whether or not you should look for something?
This isn't what I asked you. I asked you what would make you think any of them are real.
The point emerges...
So you have had an experience with God, it seems. Okay, then. Tell me what makes you think it was real.
Yes I am. Since you also shouldn't expect anything, which includes anything about what you will find.Balerion said:
That would be not having to think any of them are real, it would be something that makes thinking irrelevant.
Ok. First though, you tell me what thinking something is real has to do with experiencing it. Is it possible to experience anything without thinking about it?
Nothing makes thinking irrelevant.
If you remember the experience, you've thought about it. Now answer the question.
But do you need to think all the time? Suppose you're walking along a footpath, is thinking "I'm walking along a footpath" irrelevant? You have all the evidence you need to know that's what you're doing, so usually you think about something else.Balerion said:
I remember having experiences, yes, but I don't need to think about an ongoing experience, if it's as ordinary as walking.
Always blame others! Yay!
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You need to think about it enough to answer someone's question. If you walked around the lake today and I asked "how was the walk" you wouldn't say "I don't know. I wasn't thinking". You can have an experience and still think about it.
I think these are just semantics as there are various ways we use "thinking". It can mean "conscious" or it can be similar to "studying a problem". If it was a dream you weren't conscious but otherwise you were and should be able to answer the question I would think.
Why is it so hard for any one who is religious (on this forum) to answer a question without having to define what "it" is?
Why is it so hard for any one who is religious (on this forum) to answer a question without having to define what "it" is?
Great question.
Of course you think all the time. You don't have to be consciously thinking about walking on the footpath, but at some point you have to remember how to get there, and then realize that you've arrived.
You're being very evasive. I asked you what made you think your experience with God was real. Why can't you simply answer the question? I didn't ask you to walk me through every waking moment of your life from then until now, I simply asked you to explain how you knew it was real. It's doubtless a question you've asked yourself, or at the very least something you consciously accepted at some point. And that's to say nothing of the rationalizations you're making now. So make with the answer.
That would depend on how you define "think", surely?Balerion said:
You can do lots of things without "consciously" thinking about them, or rather, without the internal "voice" most people associate with "thinking". Most people who can speak associate their voice with this internal aspect of consciousness. When I remember someone saying something, I mentally substitute their voice when I do it.
So then what is an aspect of consciousness other than this association? Well, next you say:
At which points all you need to do is recognise those places, so you're implying that memory and recognition correspond to thought?
My answer, in case you missed it, is the thing that makes me "think" or recognise what I am experiencing all the time, is same thing that "convinced" me at an earlier time.
It's as real as walking, I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
Have I asked myself if I really know what God is? Yes, I have. But I don't ask myself if I really am walking somewhere, I just walk there, you know?
In that sense, I know what I can see and hear is real, as real as light and sound. I don't ask myself if I really can see or hear, I just accept it.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Here you go Balerion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ra66gVTfI
Seattle, you totally called it.
Disregarding the evasive maneuvering...
Which is the very thing you have yet to share with us. What convinced you at an earlier time that your experiences were A) With God, and B) Real?
Again, that isn't an answer to the questions I've asked you. I didn't ask "how real is it," I asked what made you know it was real in the first place.
Try again.
This is growing tiresome. Why not just share with me what you came up with? Why must I pull teeth to get the answer out of you?
So dreams, then, are real events to you? You don't question if you rode that hippo to the bank robbery, you simply accept that it happened?
Regarding definitions and nitpicking definitions - most people around here are sloppy with definitions, and people here and in general need much better definitions before they can even be talking about the same things. So less definition is something nobody needs. Skipping through the definitions, in the long run, is not a timesaver. Might as well say, "agree to disagree", and not talk at all, if care isn't taken with definitions, because then you just have two people talking about two different ideas wondering why there is so much misunderstanding.
Jung and Freud would say the events are real. Not physically of course, but quite possibly very real, depending upon the dream. Joseph Campbell has a good story about his argument with an interviewer about whether myths are real which illustrates well this point.
The best bet then would be to offer their own alternative definition of a word, since they are the ones who are deviating from standard definitions. Rather than, say, asking others to define the terms without offering definitions of their own. That would be the time-saver, especially since the theists around here are the ones who tend to muddy the language.
I don't know what "Not physically of course, but quite possibly very real" means. It appears to be a contradiction. In any event, you're missing the point, which is that arfa's claims to simply accept everything he experiences runs into a quagmire when it comes to dreams, as he would have to, by his own logic, accept the dream as a real event. I presume he's not that confused, but such an admission leads to an inconvenient corollary: Where does he draw the line, and how does he know where to draw it? If a dream is merely a dream, why can't his experience with "God" be something similar? Or perhaps a delusion? Obviously there is more in play here than "It happened, so it's real," so hiding behind the "I don't think about it" shtick doesn't hold up.
I'd love to hear that from arfa, if that's what he's saying. (Which, for the record, I do not believe)
How do me do me what God is?
Hmm!
Me, I guess.
Let me know if I've over-thought this profoundity.
jan.