Discussion in 'Something For All' started by Sekoy, May 1, 2017.
You're posting on a debate forum. I asked what the relevance of you meditating is.
I just posted my experience and what the relevance is to me, what you are asking for is proof. Like I said in the post, the foolish philosophers/religious scholars keep on debating getting nowhere running in circles. I'm not responding anymore you can keep debating with whoever posts gl have fun.
You don't have to respond, even though this is a debating forum. I was just expecting, well, a debate.
For anybody else reading, though, you did make a lot of claims and didn't, or were unable to, justify them. It's nice to have beliefs, but you should probably know why you believe what you do.
I'm sure someone will come to debate you soon don't worry just keep waiting for it. What I shared is a belief to you not me. To me it is an experience, to you it is someones belief. Stick to what you know don't stick to beliefs, you don't know anything so all you can do is debate the people with beliefs who don't know anything either. If I tried to explain this to you it would go way over your head because you haven't experienced anything yet, if I talk to someone who is experienced in meditation they know the process and the experiences that come on the path. The beginning you start to hear many different beautiful sounds which are stated in multiple texts, some of the musical instruments that we have on Earth were created by people who had heard the beautiful sounds within, they were replicated so they could be shared. This is the first experience a person has when they start to get some of the bliss, it supports their faith so it makes them continue their spiritual practice and with time the bliss keeps increasing. Then at one point a person starts to get a high, there's a fountain within that a person can drink from which in multiple texts is stated to quench all thirst. You have no experience with this so there's no point in talking to you about this, there's no point.
I've been doing transcendental meditation for years. I've also done a huge amount of psychedelic drugs. Sometimes your senses tell you things that aren't real. So do your feelings.
Try to explain it to me, you might be surprised.
What instruments were inspired by somebody's meditation?
I don't do drugs, I'm not sure how you do your meditation. Senses and feelings are lies, everything is false. Even these texts that were written that connect were just by people getting fooled by their senses and feelings in the same manner. Obviously your transcendental meditation and huge amount of psychedelic drugs didn't do much for you, because you are right where you started. This is pointless I don't feel you have desire or interest in really meditating and experiencing you think someone can just put it on a platter for you and describe everything to you. That's why people do these drugs is they want instant gratification instant happiness but it is only temporary and with it comes pain as well with Spirituality you have to work very hard to achieve but the bliss cannot be compared. There's a big difference between eating a mango and someone describing you the taste of the mango. I can tell you more about Spirituality and the experiences that come as a person progresses but you can't understand. It's like if I found a mango and you had never seen or tasted one before. Then you asked me about it and I started describing it to you, no matter what I told you, you could never truly understand the beauty and taste of a mango. You have to experience it for yourself. Sure I could go get another mango but mango is physical, Spirituality is the experience within yourself not outside. You have to go within no one can give it you. When people start and experience for themselves then doubts are dispelled. Doubt cannot be dispelled before that.
I can very much understand. I've had extremely intense spiritual experiences using both meditation and psychedelics, separately.
The fact that you're talking about instant gratification, instant happiness, quick highs, and experiencing something for yourself, tells me that you haven't used any psychedelics. Stereotypically, psychedelic users would be telling people like you "you don't really understand unless you've eaten a mango", not the other way around.
The thing to realize is that, objectively, the human brain is incredibly fallible. If I see a ghost, I'm wrong. If I see an elf, I'm wrong. If I see the trees talking to me, I'm wrong. The ONLY thing that can remotely be trusted is tested evidence, and even then, not always.
TL;DR, your brain fucks with you sometimes, don't believe everything you see/hear.
Have I read your thoughts correctly?
You (with Descartes) claim: The only thing you can know certainly exists is yourself, which is not to say that you/your consciousness is all that actually exists.
And if you went on and on in effort to arrive at the First Cause (which, I have the impression you'll concede, is God), how could you hope to arrive at what is eternal?
What is eternal is without cause - it's self-causal, not subject to phenomenal/Newtonian causality (and, actually, Newton himself repeatedly described God as the only thing not subject to the laws he discovered.
OK. That is your inquiry.
Suppose the first instance (if we assume such a thing as a 'first instance' can be determined), the cause, of the events leading up to a divorce is an imagined (yet never proven) suspicion of infidelity on the part of one spouse.
Does, in that instance, the cause (imagined infidelity) have as much reality as the outcome (legal divorce)?
God and the idea of God are distinct, belonging to different levels of logical type - a statement which of course presupposes that God exists (in this case, a necessary assumption).
In your second paragraph it sounds like your proposing a major non-sequitur.
See my response beneath the following quotes.
I highlighted green the instances of the word 'God,' and red the instances of the term 'my idea of God.'
So, because a thing and its cause are equally real, they also both possess identical attributes (like perfection)?
We were all in fact "caused" by fertilization, yet we (the things now reading these words) do not have zygotic properties.
It sounds like you're assuming God caused your idea of Him.
To be logically-sound, you would've had to have written your second paragraph like this (the orange terms are my additions):
I don't think so.
It sounds like it means God is His own cause.
Notice how you went from reality to perfection.
You never said that two things, as real as each other, must also be as perfect (or as anything: annoying, tall, wise, bright) as each other.
Not necessarily, if my preceding observation is correct.
I think, therefore I am. Enough said.
Science does it best. It's not about proving anything, it's about supporting things with evidence to a point where you can feel comfortable accepting it as fact.
You're saying fact is not absolute certainty?
Yes, we know nothing for certain. But many things are so supported by evidence that we can and do treat it as a certainty. It was a fact that the world was flat. It was a fact that maggots spontaneously appeared in rotting flesh. Now we know it actually wasn't a fact and it wasn't supported by very much or good evidence. Maybe in a hundred years they laugh at things we take as fact because new evidence has been shown.
It's been going on since well before Plato haha
Clap your hands
There is you proof.
How is that proof?
no clue, but if you do what i tell you to then that means i'm real and you are not or you are real too.
If I do what you tell me to do, why would that mean that you're real? I'm don't believe in any of this, but your argument makes no sense. Schizophrenics sometimes do what the "voices in their heads" tell them to do. Are those voices real people?
no that's probably different personalities of the person or something related to that.
Schizophrenics don't have different personalities, they (in some cases) literally hear voices speaking to them. If they obey what the voice says to do, by your logic, that voice is a real person.