Occasionally you can encounter an atheist who may be willing to forfeit their beliefs/values driving their position on God's nonexistence for the sake of having a theoretical discussion on topics further afield (such as God's activities). More often than not, however, such attempts are just a ruse for laying the ground rules for defining God in an inferior manner to further compound the atheist world view. It becomes "Convince me that X is true, when I get to define X in a totally irrelevant/inaccurate/misleading manner." .... which, while a proven method for increasing pages on any given online discussion topic, undermines any sort of genuine inquiry at the onset.
There is the notion of revelation or liberation from ignorance that is awarded to one who has successfully advanced their spiritual life (such as when one is fully aware of God's direct existence). IOW the notion of seeing God as some sort of spectacle and walking away with the same reserves of ignorance one had previously doesn't appear within any religious literature. There appears to be a relationship between God-realization and self-realization, in that you cannot increase one without the other. Some schools interpret this synchronicity to mean that they are non-different (the living entity is God in some ultimate homogeneous state) while others suggest this is because the living entity is connected to God not only through eternity, but also a knowledge bearing relationship (that is currently covered). IOW to evidence God through the language and experiences of a necessarily compromised living entity (ie, conditioned by ignorance, namely having a sense of identity based on illusion, namely a body and mind subject to annihilation ) is much like the task of swimming and not getting wet.
In my reading and understanding of free will, it would depend on HOW free your definition extends My thinking is along the lines of yes you have free will with a couple of provisos 1/ Your free will does not allow you in anyway to break the laws of physics 2/ You do not have access to your subconscious mind Thus when a thought from your subconscious mind pops into your concessness and your body responds accordingly, this is not free will Actions taken from your concessness is the best free will you can muster Even such actions can be suspect as you maybe completely unaware your subconscious has slipped in a line of code hidden from your conscious self Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All this is encapsulated in the word 'skeptic'. And being skeptical is a good thing. I find this particularly noteable in that we had a protracted example of this very tactic being attempted by theist Jan, right here on this forum. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts of Jan defining atheism to suit his rhetoric, and hundreds and hundreds of replies telling him he's constructed a straw man. It's certainly not endemic to skeptics.
If the skeptic is skeptical about an assertion, such as the existence of God, it stands to reason that his default position is going to be the dismantling of the definition for examination. That's not a ruse, that's analysis. And it is in direct response to the exhaustingly common practice, particularly around here, of theists' attempts to cloud the issue in magic and mystery, for example: "I didn't say God exists. I said God just 'is'! Analyze that!!"
If one layers a question (such as "what are the acrivities in God?") solely as a means to broaden a conclusion (such as "god does not exist") then it definitely is a ruse ... and such prolonged exchange simply demarcates the political boundaries of the parties involved.
Unfortunately this works the other way, too. The notion of revelation or liberation from ignorance that is awarded to those who successfully advance their own non-spiritual thinking (such as when one is fully aware of God's non-existence). Or so some atheists might argue. I.e. the award is not specific to what you suggest but to anyone who locks themself into a cycle of self-reinforcing beliefs. The moment the cycle starts to have its effect the moment you start to experience the reward. Or have you never heard of some atheists feeling liberated once the veil of religion and theism fell from their eyes, and that they could finally start seeing the world for what it is? Nor does it appear in any atheist literature. In fact they seem to mirror each other in that regard: seeing God for what it is and thus being less ignorant. They both appeal to their target audience. I'm sure that is what the Eastern religions would have you believe. Of course, if you are understanding self-realisation as defined by those religions, you're really just begging the question. Again, it all merely returns to which circle you're locked into. Arguing for the veracity of one circle using arguments contained within that circle has little bearing on those that are locked into another circle.
I'm really not sure how you erroneously concluded that i was discussing Pascal's wager? But needless to say I'm not. Now, bearing that in mind, if you want to go back and address the points...?
Of course you didn't use the term "Pascal's wager" but you were tabling wagers on where the most benefit lies in accordance to the limits of doubt .... and, as I have already mentioned, I was discussing something distinct.
Where have I tabled any wagers? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or even alluded to wagers? I have merely pointed out that your comment can equally be applied to non-believers. Where you argue that liberation and revelation come from being fully aware of God's direct existence, the mirror argument is that it also comes from being fully aware of God's non-existence. There is no mention of wager in my response to you, or where most benefit lies, or even anything to do with limits of doubt. So where have you gotten the notion that I am raising Pascal's wager (in all but name)? Please, I am genuinely curious as to how you can be so far off the mark?
By that logic, no one should ever try to ask questions to gain an understanding of anything, since, unless they actually do change their minds, you will accuse them of never having any intentions of changing their mind in the first place. What I am hearing is that you have given up, and you see no point in trying to have a debate among opposite viewpoints. Not true for everyone else. There is nothing wrong with going into a discussion with a skeptical viewpoint. Nor is there anything wrong with engaging a skeptic knowing they probably won't change their minds. It is unlikely (not is it fair to expect) that someone such as you or I will switch camps because of a discussion. It's a matter of reaching an understanding, and it happens in increments. One example just happened to me. Baldee is the first person who has ever helped me understand the agnostic point of view. I'd always assumed anything could be evidenced sufficiently enough, but the way the conversation happened, I realized for the first time that there is a distinct possibility that we cannot evidence god. I can demonstrate the Earth is round and that we went to the Moon, but how is it possible to demonstrate that an entity is the creator of the universe? Anyway, the implicit rule zero in any discussion is that the topic is worth discussing. That also means they accept that everyone else abides by rule zero as well. If any participant feels it is not worth discussing, then they have an obligation to bow out, so that others may continue. You've made it known that you suspect it is posted under false pretenses and that's fair. But that's doesn't mean others can't continue to discuss. You need to decide if you accept the tenets of this topic. Otherwise you're just disrupting it. The only alternative is to play Devil's Advocate; grant the pretense of an sincere question, and answer it as best you can. It costs you nothing to pretend for the sake of discussion that the question is honest.
There is no problems with asking a question. It only becomes facetious or dishonest when its merely a ruse or a play for some other question. For instance, there is no value in asking "what are the activities of God?" if one doesn't have the means or intentions to at least theoretically entertain the notion that God exists. Failing this, it just takes the form of asking questions about things one thinks one already has the answers to, which, in this case, ultimately falls back to demarcating political boundaries (eg. "well, you say that because you are an atheist, and your world view demands as much" etc etc).
If God doesn't exist, then 'revelation or liberation from ignorance' might be 'justified true belief' that God doesn't exist, or liberation from the false belief that he does. My concern in the post quoted above is rather different, it's that I can't understand what kind of experience could justify the belief that one had encountered a god. (A being that calls for a religious response, as opposed to an incomprehensible space alien.) An atheist denial that gods exist creates a similar problem with justifying the denial. (Which is why Thomas Huxley coined the word 'agnostic'.) I'm not convinced that any of us are familiar with all religious literature (though Jan often purports to tell us what all 'scriptures' supposedly say). The early Buddhists of the Pali canon wouldn't have agreed with that. (It sounds like an idea found in some of the early Upanishads and the Vedantic traditions they inspired.) But sure, I suppose that one might argue that 'God realization' (or the 'Beatific vision') might be self-justifying somehow. If so, then 'we will know it when we see it', so to speak (assuming that such a self-justifying experience of religious divinity is even possible). I still don't know how any more everyday sensory experience could ever justify the belief that what we are experiencing is a god. So I think that I'm still going to object to the idea of refusal to accept evidence. No conventional experience would seem to justify theistic religious belief. While an unconventional mystical experience arguably might (something that a yogi or a religious contemplative might enjoy) I'm not sure if that's something that an atheist can refuse or reject. It's more along the lines of a transformative event that would turn the atheist into a theist. I'm still concerned with this though: "There is the notion of revelation or liberation from ignorance that is awarded to one who has successfully advanced their spiritual life (such as when one is fully aware of God's direct existence)." If the transformative event that justifies everything only happens to those who are already 'fully aware' prior to God-realization (or whatever it is), and if there's no more mundane experience that can justify that 'awareness' before the ultimate transformative event at the end of the path, then we still face our epistemological problem.
This is a giant ad hom. You attempt to invalidate the message because you suspect the motives of the messenger. He's asking a legit question - one that you or anyone else should be able to provide an answer to - even to your skeptics. If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it. Start a new thread about disingenuity and whether the beliefs of a poster invalidate the question being asked (be prepared to defend your use of ad hominems). But here, regardless of your suspicions of the OP's beliefs, the topic is what does god do? Do you have anything to contribute or not?
Its not a suspicion. The motives are in plain sight for all to see. But if he is also insisting on reframing the question within the parameters of atheism (namely that "God really doesn't exist") then he is just begging the question. As it pertains to knowing God, he just tabled atheism as an epistemological equivalent to samadhi or revelation. Granted that a disbelief in God must also warrant an equal if not greater disbelief in epistemological states that grant such knowledge .... but, as it pertains to this thread, it's just posturing as a means to an end of atheism. On the contrary, if one is duty bound to reframe every contribution to meet the conclusion of "God does not exist", they would be better off doing away with dalliances on the activities of God or epistemological states associated with such, and start a new thread to meet their needs. Sure. Yazata appears to have the resources to discuss some issues. I also put an earlier response to JamesR. In regards to your contribution of ... Wouldn't it sort of behoove one to first determine that this god exists and has actions, before bothering to question them? That's kind of the point of this thread. ... I am actually (sort of) agreeing with you (although I think God's existence is a given for the OP ..... and if you want to nut out whether God exists or not, you are in the wrong thread) . If one cannot first determine whether God actually exists (even if only theoretically) there is not much to discuss in this thread (or rather, the only things that will be discussed are the political demarcations the opposing parties require ... eg."well, you say that because you are an atheist, and your world view demands as much" etc etc).
Motives are an ad hom. Address the question, not the questioner. You don't get points for drawing attention to a skeptic who is being skeptical. No, the question was begged when god was asserted (apparently) without compelling evidence. JamesR is simply asking for the compelling evidence. Again, you don't get points for drawing attention to a skeptic who is being skeptical. Since what god does is an argument put forth in favour of god's being real, we get to ask for that argument to be fleshed out.
Then, at the very least, you are working with a very different definition of samadhi or revelation, since both words allude to a state beyond mere mental ruminations. If the knowledge is transcendental there will be obvious problems of bridging that gap with means that are clearly not transcendental. In fact to suggest otherwise would probably render atheism as an impossible option in the minds of all. Of course if one is accepting certain pramanas as authoritative, there will be no means of bridging that epistemological gap. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana Well, can you think of any scripture that alludes to a type of transcendental awareness that isn't backed up by an equivelant heightened sense of selfhood? Citing buddhism as an authority on the nature of God is problematic from the onset (although it also is fully obedient to the notion of heightened selfhood running parallel to higher states of awareness ... even if they frame the advancement in negative terminology and would define it in reducing/extinguishing superficial elements of the self). The requirement that God be knowable in terms of everyday sensory experience would be a necessarily dumbed down version of God (since everyday sensory experience is the necessary medium for functional ignorance). It's like requesting one experience a dream while being awake. Or to use another analogy, that if we could fully understand our brains, our brains would be so simple that we couldn't successfully use them to understand them. Actually I would argue that the subject of what constitutes spiritual advancement prior to liberation is the number one subject in terms of prescriptive descriptions in scripture. For this reason, the notion of an atheist accidently waltzing into the realms of liberation does not appear to be a well documented one.
Perhaps you would make sense if you addressed what I was pointing out as evidence of the motive .... I would assume a rising tide raises the ships of skeptics of all creeds (not just the one's you share values with) In that case, the OP was moot at the very beginning in your books. Yes, evidence of God's activities, to which he was replied. I think you miss the point that this thread is about (being skeptical of) the activities of God. If your skepticism is so overwhelming that you can't get past the point of (being skeptical of) God's existence, then your interests are probably better served elsewhere. Well let's hope you don't also require the redefinition of God in the process.
