Why The Monotheistic God Is Too Improbable To Believe, Even On Faith

[TaskmasterX]

What is a soul, if not a pattern of consciousness? God in theory is an infinitely complex pattern of consciousness. No other realm is necessary, but no other realm has been posited. God and human souls would occupy the same realm as other patterns.

As my favorite weed-smoking atheist, Carl Sagan, would say, "Incredible claims require incredible proof". There is no proof that a soul is a pattern of consciousness. Even more there is no proof that souls even exist. When you stop assuming the premise that souls and mystical states exist and that they can explain the undiscovered aspects of the physical world, then this is when you open up your mind to alternate possibilities that don't require such fabrications.
It is proven that starving yourself can cause hallucinations. Fasting is a common religious practice amoung alot of religions. They are using a normal, natural process to claim that they are experiencing a mystical state, when the process can be described more accurately using science. When you already assume that there are souls and mystical states, you blind yourself to what you are actually experiencing.

 

[First Thought]

I place the same amount of significance on ALL phenomena. Just because something happens that can't be explained, does not mean it has a mystical origin, as i have already explained that science eventually erases the mystical component of natural phenomenon and it's not finished yet.

So you believe that science will eventually illuminate all the intricacies of the Universe. I, too, hope for this to occur.

How do you know how far we have to go?

I do not know how far we have to go.
What I do know is that there are plenty of things that science cannot adequately explain. Hence my statement.

This is another subjective statement, not factual.

Of course it is a subjective statement.

Again, FIRST you need to explain the reason for there to be a mystical realm before you can start talking like mystical states actually exist.

No, I do not need to explain anything. I am engaging in this discussion of my own volition and discussing from experience. I have never claimed to have all of the answers or to know why other planes/dimensions/realities exist.

For some reason you can't seem to accept that I don't accept the premise that mystical realms, or states exist.

No, I gathered that quite quickly.

If you accept the fact that some people are better football players, writers, artists, politicians, etc. than others, then why can't some be better at interpreting phenomena than others?

Because "better" indicates a subjective rating scale. What you think of my beliefs is your business and yours alone.

I'm asking this question again: What criteria do you use to decide which subjective experiences are relevant and which are not?

All are relevant.

You keep saying that in the spiritual realm we are all one. Why then would we need to subjectively find the reason for existence in this realm?

We have free will. Some people want to spend their life being miserable. Some want to become successful lawyers and doctors. And some wish to uncover the why we are. It's the journey that is important.

Wouldn't it make more sense that we all would end up with the same experience or interpretation of this reality if we were all part of the same creator?

No. Each person expresses their existence differently. If we all had the same interpretation of reality, there would be nothing to discuss, discover or learn.

We all see the universe in the same way and get the same experience when using the objective laws of science.

You are ignoring subjective interpretation of objective data.

When did I ever claim that math doesn't exist? Math is the programming language of the physical universe. While matter and energy could be the hardware. A soul isn't necessary. Adding it in just brings a whole lot of questions, like throwing a wrench into the system.
If you want to describe consciousness, then that would be more like the computer user, not the software. Sure, the hardware and software is there, but it needs a user too. It leads to one of the greatest paradox questions: Does the universe exist because life is here to experience it, or do we exist only because of the universe's existence? Or maybe both? We both can't exist without each other. We are all part of one great system where all parts are necessary. There doesn't need to be another realm. It's not necessary for the system to work. It actually throws the system off.

You view the material and physical world as being the entirety of the system. Therein lies the problem comprehending mystical states or other planes of existence.

 

[MaggieD]

An annotated video detailing some of the more trenchant Atheistic and secular arguments against monotheism in existence. Some of these arguments are too powerful to ignore. I'm sure a few of these have been belabored in the forum already, but this is rather succinct, and in a short video delivery.

Why are people who don't believe in God so eager to debunk him?

 

[Cephus]

Why are people who don't believe in God so eager to debunk him?

Because people who do believe in God are so eager to shove that belief down the throats of everyone around them.

 

[First Thought]

Because people who do believe in God are so eager to shove that belief down the throats of everyone around them.

You are painting with a pretty broad brush.

 

[TaskmasterX]

So you believe that science will eventually illuminate all the intricacies of the Universe. I, too, hope for this to occur.
No, I do not need to explain anything. I am engaging in this discussion of my own volition and discussing from experience. I have never claimed to have all of the answers or to know why other planes/dimensions/realities exist.

And with this statement you have just blown the lid off your argument. I had said that I know that science will eventually answer all questions and you try to correct me in saying that I believe rather than know it. Yet, here, in a previous statement of yours:

I do not know why a non-physical reality exists. I only know that it does. Just because an idea challenges the boundaries of comprehension does not mean it should be disregarded.

you claim to know that an non-physical reality exists but never corrected your statement. I even provided observable evidence (throughout history science has removed the mystical aspect of natural phenomenon) to support my knowledge, where you continue to spout that souls and non-physical realms exist with no observable proof. Yet, my statements don't contain knowledge and yours does? Of course you don't need to explain yourself, but then that doesn't really make anything you say relevent to anyone except yourself. So why participate in this discussion in the first place?

No. Each person expresses their existence differently. If we all had the same interpretation of reality, there would be nothing to discuss, discover or learn.

If we all did not have the same interpretation of reality, then we would not exist in the first place. How could you procreate with another member of your species if we all had different interpretations of reality. How could social animals be social if they all had different interpreations of reality. The point is that we all have the same general interpretations of reality. We all have the same five senses - senses that evolved to observe and intepret the one an only reality that exists - this one. No other senses evolved to sense other realities because they don't exist. The differences among us are really small in the grand scheme of things when you think about it.

You view the material and physical world as being the entirety of the system. Therein lies the problem comprehending mystical states or other planes of existence.

Again you claim that I have a problem in comprehending something that you claim exists, yet provide no proof. I don't see a problem until you introduce your fabrications. Maybe it is you that has a problem applying your same argument to yourself?

 

[First Thought]

And with this statement you have just blown the lid off your argument. I had said that I know that science will eventually answer all questions and you try to correct me in saying that I believe rather than know it. Yet, here, in a previous statement of yours:

you claim to know that an non-physical reality exists but never corrected your statement. I even provided observable evidence (throughout history science has removed the mystical aspect of natural phenomenon) to support my knowledge, where you continue to spout that souls and non-physical realms exist with no observable proof.

Two different scenarios. Context is very improtant. You claimed to "know" the future(science will explain all phenomena eventually). I claim to know something by virtue of experiencing it.

Yet, my statements don't contain knowledge and yours does?

When did I say that?

Of course you don't need to explain yourself, but then that doesn't really make anything you say relevent to anyone except yourself. So why participate in this discussion in the first place?

You want me to prove a subjective experience. I can not experience a subjective experience for you. If you wish to understand and experience mystical states, you have to to put in the work. Instead, you speak of phenomena you do not understand(by virtue of never experiencing it).

If we all did not have the same interpretation of reality, then we would not exist in the first place. How could you procreate with another member of your species if we all had different interpretations of reality. How could social animals be social if they all had different interpreations of reality.

We make agreements. By virtue of being human, we are a part of the human collective consciousness that Jung wrote extensively about. Thus, objective reality is shaped by certain agreements and beliefs we have, like different "flavors" of experience to choose from.

My goal, as a natural byproduct of choosing to live a spiritual life, is to be in this world but not of it. This is the path of the mystics, saints, illumined and self-realized individuals.

The point is that we all have the same general interpretations of reality.

Agreed, "general" being the key word.

We all have the same five senses - senses that evolved to observe and intepret the one an only reality that exists - this one. No other senses evolved to sense other realities because they don't exist. The differences among us are really small in the grand scheme of things when you think about it.

I respectfully disagree.

Again you claim that I have a problem in comprehending something that you claim exists, yet provide no proof. I don't see a problem until you introduce your fabrications. Maybe it is you that has a problem applying your same argument to yourself?

By deciding that the only reality is the material one, you have closed yourself off to other paradigms or frameworks of reality. You are trying to fit things like mystical experiences and OBEs into a framework that does not allow them to exist. Stop trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. If you want the peg to fit, change the hole(your framework).

 

[Cephus]

You are painting with a pretty broad brush.

Not at all. I don't see anyone around here focusing on those who are keeping their religions completely to themselves. It's the ones who insist on pushing it on everyone else that gets criticized, as they should be.

 

[Panache]

As my favorite weed-smoking atheist, Carl Sagan, would say, "Incredible claims require incredible proof". There is no proof that a soul is a pattern of consciousness. Even more there is no proof that souls even exist. When you stop assuming the premise that souls and mystical states exist and that they can explain the undiscovered aspects of the physical world, then this is when you open up your mind to alternate possibilities that don't require such fabrications.
It is proven that starving yourself can cause hallucinations. Fasting is a common religious practice amoung alot of religions. They are using a normal, natural process to claim that they are experiencing a mystical state, when the process can be described more accurately using science. When you already assume that there are souls and mystical states, you blind yourself to what you are actually experiencing.

Ok, so your position is that sentient thought doesn't exist? That is a fairly absurd claim to make, since sentient thought is required in order to even make that claim.

If people are sentient, then there is a pattern of consciousness. People make choices, and those choices are determined by some mechanism. I call that mechanism a soul. You can call it a cucumber if you like, it won't change its function. Are you claiming that such a mechanism doesn't exist? That choices are never made?

 

[Panache]

double post

 

[TaskmasterX]

Two different scenarios. Context is very improtant. You claimed to "know" the future(science will explain all phenomena eventually). I claim to know something by virtue of experiencing it.

What is the difference? Religious folks claim to know the future (Revelations is a prim example) yet I don't hear you blasting their "subjective experiences". It doesn't matter. A subjective experience is a subjective experience whether you claim to experience a mystical state or see a vision of the future. You continue to claim that subjective experiences are the way to find the reason for existence while you claim that yours is the best while everyone elses' is a "problem" or "not comprehending" YOUR subjective experience while you don't a have a problem comprehending others. I'm done with this pointless conversation. Both mine and yours statements have no physical proof. So both statements have an equal chance of being correct. So maybe it is actually you having a problem comprehending that my vision of the future exists. You see this is problem of relying on subjective experiences to explain existence. If the person you are debating has a "problem comprehending" then that would mean you do as well.

You are painting with a pretty broad brush.

And why did I not see the same remark to the original statement:

Why are people who don't believe in God so eager to debunk him?

Oh yeah, you have a problem comprehending subjective experiences.

By deciding that the only reality is the material one, you have closed yourself off to other paradigms or frameworks of reality. You are trying to fit things like mystical experiences and OBEs into a framework that does not allow them to exist. Stop trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. If you want the peg to fit, change the hole(your framework).

And you have decided that mystical states exists. You have closed yourself off to other paradaigms of frameworks of reality. If you had read what I said that mystical states and OBEs are really undescribed natural phenomenon and will eventually be explained by science, then you would know that what you just said is pointless. All my pegs fit. I see it as you are trying to give me a square peg, when all my round pegs are filling all the round holes. When applying your same line of reasoning to your own arguments and statements, it falls apart. I'm done.

 

[TaskmasterX]

Two different scenarios. Context is very improtant. You claimed to "know" the future(science will explain all phenomena eventually). I claim to know something by virtue of experiencing it.

What is the difference? Religious folks claim to know the future (Revelations is a prim example) yet I don't hear you blasting their "subjective experiences". It doesn't matter. A subjective experience is a subjective experience whether you claim to experience a mystical state or see a vision of the future. You continue to claim that subjective experiences are the way to find the reason for existence while you claim that yours is the best while everyone elses' is a "problem" or "not comprehending" YOUR subjective experience while you don't a have a problem comprehending others. I'm done with this pointless conversation. According to your reasoning both statements can have an equal chance of being relevant. So why then would it be hard to believe that it is you with the problem comprehending? You see, this is problem of relying on subjective experiences to explain existence. If the person you are debating has a "problem comprehending" then that would mean you do as well.

By deciding that the only reality is the material one, you have closed yourself off to other paradigms or frameworks of reality. You are trying to fit things like mystical experiences and OBEs into a framework that does not allow them to exist. Stop trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. If you want the peg to fit, change the hole(your framework).

And you have decided that mystical states exists. You have closed yourself off to other paradaigms of frameworks of reality. If you had read what I said that mystical states and OBEs are really undescribed natural phenomenon and will eventually be explained by science, then you would know that what you just said is pointless. All my pegs fit. I see it as you are trying to give me a square peg, when all my round pegs are filling all the round holes. When applying your same line of reasoning to your own arguments and statements, it falls apart. I'm done.

Why are people who don't believe in God so eager to debunk him?

You are painting with a pretty broad brush.

And why did I not see the same remark to the original statement:

Why are people who don't believe in God so eager to debunk him?

Oh yeah, I forgot. You have a problem comprehending non-religious, e,r I mean non-hypocrisy.

Sorry for the double-post. I can't delete the previous one for some reason. It's still early where I am. Yawn!

 

[reefedjib]

EgoffTib,

What do you do to prepare to have or actually experience mystical experiences?

 

[First Thought]

EgoffTib,

What do you do to prepare to have or actually experience mystical experiences?

Primarily transcendental mediatation and some of the more esoteric Hindu yogas(Bhakti, Kriya and Kundalini). Sometimes I'll use shamanistic techniques as well, such as imbibing ayahuasca.

 

[First Thought]

What is the difference? Religious folks claim to know the future (Revelations is a prim example) yet I don't hear you blasting their "subjective experiences".

I'm not "religious folks," nor do I think Revelations is a book worth taking seriously in the Bible.

It doesn't matter. A subjective experience is a subjective experience whether you claim to experience a mystical state or see a vision of the future.

Correct. I do not think any disputing that.

You continue to claim that subjective experiences are the way to find the reason for existence while you claim that yours is the best

I have never claimed that my views are "best" or superior.

while everyone elses' is a "problem" or "not comprehending" YOUR subjective experience while you don't a have a problem comprehending others.

Your framework is only a problem when trying to understand things that lie outside your framework. My views allow for OBEs to exist, yours do not. Thus, you have difficulty understanding them.

I'm done with this pointless conversation. According to your reasoning both statements can have an equal chance of being relevant. So why then would it be hard to believe that it is you with the problem comprehending?

What am I having difficulty comprehending?

You see, this is problem of relying on subjective experiences to explain existence. If the person you are debating has a "problem comprehending" then that would mean you do as well.

No, I have no problem understanding the topic of our discussion, which is OBEs.

And you have decided that mystical states exists.

Yes, by experiencing them. You have decided they do not exist because you have not experienced them. What's the difficulty in understanding this?

You have closed yourself off to other paradaigms of frameworks of reality.

Actually, I expanded a smaller framework of interpretation to encompass subjectively experienced phenomena.

If you had read what I said that mystical states and OBEs are really undescribed natural phenomenon and will eventually be explained by science, then you would know that what you just said is pointless.

You are free to predict the future as you see fit. I am free to disagree.

All my pegs fit.

Not if you are genuinely trying to understand OBEs.

I see it as you are trying to give me a square peg, when all my round pegs are filling all the round holes. When applying your same line of reasoning to your own arguments and statements, it falls apart. I'm done.

Okay, have a good day.

And why did I not see the same remark to the original statement:

Oh yeah, I forgot. You have a problem comprehending non-religious, e,r I mean non-hypocrisy.

It is clear that they both made generalizations. I chose to address Cephus because his post was the one I saw first.

 

[reefedjib]

Primarily transcendental mediatation and some of the more esoteric Hindu yogas(Bhakti, Kriya and Kundalini). Sometimes I'll use shamanistic techniques as well, such as imbibing ayahuasca.

I have primarily used some other Yogas (Gnana and Raja) and though they don't have meditation practices, they can be the subject of meditation. I have use Bhakti and studied and practiced a little Kundalini, but not Kriya. I was getting quite deep in mediation, seeing colors and reaching the moment of peacefulness as I call it. My smoking ultimately limits my experiences.

I no longer drink, smoke pot or take any other form of mind altering substance, so I won't try ayahuasca.

EDIT - I will just add that Pranayama, especially Khumbaka, was the key to my meditations.

 

[First Thought]

I have primarily used some other Yogas (Gnana and Raja) and though they don't have meditation practices, they can be the subject of meditation. I have use Bhakti and studied and practiced a little Kundalini, but not Kriya.

Kundalini has been my favorite thus far. Opening up the Third Eye Chakra has been extremely beneficial to my perception of phenomena. Kundalini Yoga also has desirable physiological side effects(spontaneous release of endorphines leading to an exquisite sensation that runs up the spine and out the Crown Chakra).

Kriya yoga was brought to the west by Paramahansa Yogananda. Kriya is one of the yogas I'm just getting my feet wet with.

I was getting quite deep in mediation, seeing colors and reaching the moment of peacefulness as I call it.

In my experience, there is usually something interesting lying beyond the distraction of colors, as beautiful as they may be. Try piercing the veil of colors and let me know what you find on the other side.

My smoking ultimately limits my experiences.
I no longer drink, smoke pot or take any other form of mind altering substance, so I won't try ayahuasca.

I can understand. Engaging in the usage of substances as a catalyst for mystical or transcendental experiences can sometimes lead to a loss of control, resulting in erratic consciousness shifts without any stabilization. That's why I only use ayahuasca and other substances sparingly and with the proper safeguards in place.

EDIT - I will just add that Pranayama, especially Khumbaka, was the key to my meditations.

I'm not familiar with those terms. I am only recently brushing up on my Hinduism, so some of the vernacular is unfamiliar to me(though the concepts the words describe are familiar due to my knowledge of Buddhism).

 

[reefedjib]

I'm not familiar with those terms. I am only recently brushing up on my Hinduism, so some of the vernacular is unfamiliar to me(though the concepts the words describe are familiar due to my knowledge of Buddhism).

Pranayama is the 4th step of the Yoga Sutras and is both breath control and internal life-force. It connects the body to the consciousness. You can consciouslly control it or allow it to be automatically governed by the subconscious. It is the first of automatic bodily functions that can be consciously controlled. There are 5 pranas, two of which are in and out breathing. The others are internal.

Your friend Paramahansa Yogananda says:

Yoga works primarily with the energy in the body, through the science of pranayama, or energy-control. Prana means also ‘breath.’ Yoga teaches how, through breath-control, to still the mind and attain higher states of awareness. The higher teachings of yoga take one beyond techniques, and show the yogi, or yoga practitioner, how to direct his concentration in such a way as not only to harmonize human with divine consciousness, but to merge his consciousness in the Infinite.

– Paramahansa Yogananda

Kumbhaka is the retension of breath after an inhale or exhale. It allows the other pranas to calm down to allow you to meditate.

 

[TaskmasterX]

Right. I was trying to discuss this this morning before I had my cup of coffee and I don't think I explained myself clearly. So, I'll take another stab at it.

Your framework is only a problem when trying to understand things that lie outside your framework. My views allow for OBEs to exist, yours do not. Thus, you have difficulty understanding them.

I have never claimed that my views are "best" or superior.

My framework does include yours, mine, and all other people's experiences. The difference is that you label the same experiences as having a mystical nature, where I say that those same experiences can be accounted for by using science. As an example, you mentioned OBE's. My views DO allow for OBE's, it's just that isn't what I would call them. You would label an OBE as being spritual in origin. I would label it as the brain's last electrical activity before it becomes "dead". My framework accounts for all that exists and can be experienced. I just know that science can be used to explain everything you experience. It's not that your experiences aren't included in my framework, it's that the reason for the experiences can be explained scientifically, while you believe that they can only be explained using mysticism.

By claiming that my framework has a problem because it doesn't include your experiences is claiming that my framework is inferior to yours. Especially when you don't claim that there is any problem with your framework when you don't include other people's framework into yours. If my framework is lacking because you think mine doesn't take into account your experiences, then what does that say about your framework when you won't take into account others' experiences? Why is there a problem with my framework, after I already assured you several times that there isn't, and not with yours when you made the decision to not take the experiences of those that wrote the book or Revelations seriously. How is that your framework is not lacking when you don't account for their experiences? How is it not lacking when it doesn't include ALL experiences, including ones you don't agree with or take seriously? How is it you can pick and choose what experiences that you incorporate into your framework, and it not have a problem, yet mine does because it (supposedly) doesn't include yours?

As I said (several times), my framework is complete. There is no need for a divine being to account for your experiences in my framework. They can be explained with science. Maybe not now, but they can eventually. How do you know that a new experience won't change your framework? It is possible in my framework, because what we learn with science is constantly changing the way we see the universe and our place in it. Does your framework allow for the same thing? If not, then why?

No, I have no problem understanding the topic of our discussion, which is OBEs.

Actually, no, we were talking about subjectivism vs. objectivism. You just started talking about OBE's in your last post.

Yes, by experiencing them. You have decided they do not exist because you have not experienced them. What's the difficulty in understanding this?

No difficulty at all. The only difficulty I'm currently experiencing is getting you to read what I type. I mentioned in the other thread that we were talking in barely a week ago (it's obvious you don't pay attention to nor care what others say, only what you say) that I was raised in a Baptist home. I was "saved" and "baptised" I tried to experience spiritualism. I thought I was. Then I came to realize that I wasn't. So, no, they don't exist because I didn't experience them, they don't exist because, they are either not there to experience, or the experience wasn't spiritual at all, but rather they were natural phenomenon that some would construe as being spiritual. Just as I, nor you, can experience seeing a flying purple pig, because flying purple pigs don't exist.

 

[reefedjib]

My framework accounts for all that exists and can be experienced. I just know that science can be used to explain everything you experience.

How do you know that science can be used to explain everything someone may experience? Science requires measurement. If something can be experienced, but is not measurable, then science cannot explain it. Yet it exists and is real.

 

[TaskmasterX]

How do you know that science can be used to explain everything someone may experience? Science requires measurement. If something can be experienced, but is not measurable, then science cannot explain it. Yet it exists and is real.

Can you give me an example of an experience that your talking about?

 

[reefedjib]

Can you give me an example of an experience that your talking about?

Perceiving the thoughts of other people.

 

[TaskmasterX]

Perceiving the thoughts of other people.

In this case we'd first we'd have to determine if one actually did perceive the thoughts of another person. If that can be determined, then we could start experimenting with the brain's neurons, electricity, etc. My point is that first we'd have to determine that what you experienced is actually what you claimed that you experienced. Sure, you experienced something, but was it actually, perceiving someone's thoughts? Was it coincidence that you were able to guess one out of ten times that you perceived someone's thoughts? Is it a fabrication? Do you deny that someone claiming that they are perceving someone else's thoughts could possibly be lying? If so, how do we know which person that claimed to perceive thoughts to be telling the truth and not trying to be a fame-whore? When we find the ones that are legitimately percieving someone else's thoughts, then we can start the experimentation (measuring).

 

[reefedjib]

In this case we'd first we'd have to determine if one actually did perceive the thoughts of another person. If that can be determined, then we could start experimenting with the brain's neurons, electricity, etc. My point is that first we'd have to determine that what you experienced is actually what you claimed that you experienced. Sure, you experienced something, but was it actually, perceiving someone's thoughts? Was it coincidence that you were able to guess one out of ten times that you perceived someone's thoughts? Is it a fabrication? Do you deny that someone claiming that they are perceving someone else's thoughts could possibly be lying? If so, how do we know which person that claimed to perceive thoughts to be telling the truth and not trying to be a fame-whore? When we find the ones that are legitimately percieving someone else's thoughts, then we can start the experimentation (measuring).

The people who can do this have zero interest in being experimented upon.

Science has yet to identify what constitutes a thought. This is because they are unmeasurable. The fact that they can travel from one person to another is secondary to this fact.

 

[TaskmasterX]

The people who can do this have zero interest in being experimented upon.

Most likely because they are fabricating it.As EgoffTib would say: "that's painting with we pretty broad brush". I'm sure I can find one person to experiment on. That's a mighty fine "example" you gave me when you already knew that these "people" wouldn't want their "talent" measured or experimented on. Doh!

Science has yet to identify what constitutes a thought. This is because they are unmeasurable. The fact that they can travel from one person to another is secondary to this fact.

It's a fact that thoughts can travel to one person to the next? Right. I think I've been left with the loonies in this thread. Science has yet to identify what constitutes thought? Have you picked up an issue of Scientific American lately? How is that scientists have now connected brains to computers and people can move mouse cursosr and type with only thinking about it. If we haven't identified what constitutes thought, how is it that that is possible?

I found an article from waaayyyy back in 1984 in Scientific American. Yes, even back then science was already identifying what constitutes a thought. Boy, you are behind the times. I can't find a link to the actual article, but I did find this:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ309010
which is proof that I'm not BSing as much as some others here.