Just because you cannot see nor pinpoint God does not mean that there is no God. It’s more “sensible” and “logical” that God slips under the radar of human perception and consciousness.
Rather than believing blindly, without evidence, in the existence of causes (and magical entities such as God) it’s better to ground your beliefs in reality, which is to say, in your prior observations.
Otherwise, you can never be proven wrong. You are right no matter what you say. You are right because you say you are right.
If your prior observations suggest that some event does not have a cause then it’s only natural to conclude that it has no cause.
It does not matter that it’s possible that you’re wrong.
Because it’s possible that you’re wrong about EVERYTHING.
And it does not matter that you WANT there to be a cause.
What we want to be the case is not necessarily what is the case.
There is no evidence that God exists.
But if we keep searching for it we will find it one day.
It’s important to be an optimist.
Don’t be a pessimist.
You need to keep the hope.
Just keep searching and one day you’ll find it.
And noone can prove you wrong.
Because no matter how much evidence there is against the idea that God exists there is still more evidence to be found in the future.
So it’s still possible that God exists.
If you want to ascribe ‘God’ to Causality then that’s your prerogative to do so. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last. For a long time, and even now, Christian monks have associated the ideals of “First Cause” and “Prime Mover” with “God”.
You’re making the mistake of placing your own personal preferences (e.g. that causes are everywhere around you even when you don’t see them) above sensory information (e.g. that for some events we see no causes no matter how much we look for them.)
The exact same mistake that Christians and people like James (who think that you can “logically prove” that there is no such a thing as uncaused events even though it’s one of the most obvious things) make.
Basically, subjectivism.
Either you’re a rationalist (who believes that logic is something more than just a pattern of reasoning, something above sensory information) or you’re an empiricist (who believes that sensory information is fundamental.)
If you’re a rationalist, then you’re delusional.
That’s how it is.
Just because you can’t find the cause of things or pattern of events, doesn’t mean there isn’t.
That is subjectivism.
My position is objectivism. Causation, explanations, reasoning, logic, are relative between people. Knowledge is limited. My position is that human intellect and consciousness is limited. You seem to claim otherwise.
Your presumption is that: “Beyond our/my limits, you cannot say nor predict anything meaningful.” I disagree. I’m saying that “uncaused things” or “chaos” is irrational. Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. For you to presume as much, is solipsistic-subjectivism.
An uncaused event is simply an event for which we see no cause. That’s all it means.
A caused event is simply an event for which we see a cause. That’s all it means.
What appears to be an uncaused event today might turn out to be a caused event tomorrow when new evidence arrives.
And what appears to be a caused event tomorrow might turn out to be an uncaused event the day after the tomorrow when further evidence arrives.
And so on ad infinitum.
Do you get my point?
When you see no causes of an event, and when no amount of effort can help you to find them, then the only realistic thing to conclude is that the event is uncaused.
That’s how thinking works.
If there is no evidence for something then that something does not exist.
End of story.
There is no evidence that God exists, therefore, God does not exist.
There is no evidence that some event E has a cause, therefore, that event E does not have a cause.
You don’t go “look, our consciousness is limited, so just because we can’t see something does not mean that something does not exist”.
Because if you adopt that way of thinking then EVERYTHING becomes equally possible as everything else.
Who am I to say that God does not exist?
I have to open my mind and keep it in that state for an infinite period of time.
Otherwise, I risk being accused of subjectivism, solipsism, etc.
Objectivism means not believing in things unless there is evidence for them.
I see no evidence that God exists (and that every event is caused by some other event) so I don’t think that God exists (and that every event is caused by some other event.)
That’s a conclusion based on my viewpoint which is personal.
You are accusing me of being a subjectivist simply because of the fact that my viewpoint, which means nothing other than a set of observations that I possess regarding the world, is personal (i.e. limited) rather than universal (i.e. unlimited, absolute, complete, etc.)
As if there are viewpoints that are omniscient.
You are asking me to ABANDON my viewpoint and immerse myself in the realm of imagination all the while pretending that this is a more objective path.
Which it isn’t.
When you abandon your personal viewpoint the only thing that remains is IMAGINATION.
I can agree with this IF you are using the word caused to mean something which has ultimately been affected and determined as a result of something else ~ some other happening or behavior or lack of realization.
I said ultimately since something which was happening let’s say ten years ago can affect something ten years later and continue to affect it unless transcended or worked through.
Everything has a cause. If something appeared by magic, then magic is the cause. If it appeared from randomness, then happenstance was the cause. If by hallucination, then hallucination was the cause. There is nothing uncaused. Even the first cause had a cause and that cause had to be caused by something/one unrestrained by causality and somehow independent from duality or the first cause wouldn’t be the first cause but just another in the infinite progression of causes which is just as nonsensical as having an uncaused cause. Infinite progressions cannot exist in reality and are only fantasy. See here for more on that: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=192903&start=200#p2677831
and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=192903&start=200#p2677844
So if there are no uncaused causes and there are no infinite progressions of causes, then how did the first cause get here? That’s proof duality had a beginning because there is no other explanation. In the beginning, there was nothing unknown. Indeed, there was no unknown, no darkness, no space between points, no time, everything was here and now in an infinitesimally small, perhaps nonexistent point. Or is it equally valid to say an infinitely large and ubiquitous point? I see no distinction. Duality had a beginning because duality is not independent of its own definition and existence of duality itself necessitates non-existence of duality. Existence already includes nonexistence and the transition between the states requires a cause.
Yes.
And it is the real event, its the winter solstice, which we as conscious beings on Earth (not all humans are so conscious) naturally celebrate, as it marks a great change in the influences on our lives. Future events are, unlike Hume wanted so badly to say to Newton to still feel he had a right to dip a pen in ink, actually there. Otherwise they aren’t future events. Our expectation is a function of these events. Much about existence is not blindly being determined by the past but self-determination based on certainties in the future.
For example, if Christmas doesn’t come, that means we don’t exist, the Earth has ceased orbiting the Sun. So by definition, it will come. If we don’t exist, we can’t work with definitions.
And in a very predictable way - the one that puts us in the best light - in our own perspective no less. Its very selective.
But for me it is a it different, as you’ve seen - I like getting people to hate me, because I already feel that they are working with standards I loathe, and I want them to know it. This, for me, is the beginning of a time. And all beginnings are rough, start out with great contrasts and conflicts.
I remember my mind losing faith in the idea that the things it holds as real in itself have any substance besides that mind - that corroded the integrity of my ego quickly, and I came into world where I had to go by empirical evidence and smell and touch, and so I discovered magic, and from there on I got into Nietzsche. So Ive been able to take Nietzsche on that level you describe Nietzsche describing - which puts me in a privileged position among Nietzscheans - I always recognized the magician in him. the trickster, the devil that feeds off details you overlook. I always took him for a lure, an evil playmate, someone who knows play is all there is, where it concerns teaching - ‘fool me once…’
That is indeed the way I seem to go about - whats very remarkable is how far ore difficult and ineffective it is to hold three thoughts at once. Its not much more difficult, it just doesn’t produce the same dynamism. It doesn’t produce a new thought. But the reason is simple, we have two brain hemispheres, not three. A synthesis is built in the frontal lobes, a lot of lasting neural connections are made in that way.
What I used to do when I learned Kabbalah is hold the fully unfolded sun and moon nadis in my awareness and wait for my will to concentrate up to a point where I could have them controlled-spontaneously fuse and become the sushumna Nadi. Its really tough, you have to entirely frame the fusion before it happens, build a mental resistance on all sides, six sides in total. I have only bothered about five times with exercises like that, and they sufficed to sustain transformations for years afterwards.
You might be surprised what reality offers of uncertain things, in sports has had many a uncertain matches when odds favor a team there is always a little chance that the under tipped team will win.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle offers no certainty.
Wouldn’t the fact that they are actually looking for that god cause them to believe in the first place and so they are already biased.
The only way that they will find their god is through faith and that will not prove anything either way.
They are no different than the stoics who are stoic because there is no real explanation for something except for what they decide to see and accept.
Moral of the story: don’t stop talking, If you’re the OP and mention stopping talking and it’s relationship to mysticism, lest you be confused with a mystic.
And if you respond further you’ll get demoted an additional 50 points off the acumen ladder.
