On Jun 15, 8:55 pm, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > [Bridge] > > > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 7:47 pm, Simon Ewins<[email protected]> wrote: > >> [Bridge] > > >>>> Like the 'divine simplicity', the non-existent is radically unlike > >>>> creatures in that it is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether > >>>> physical or metaphysical. > > >>>> Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, the non-existent is free of > >>>> matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence > >>>> composition. ... This is the doctrine of the simplicity of non-existence. > > >>>> So, again, how do you distinguish between a god that is 'divine > >>>> simplicity' and that which is non-existent? > > >>> This is an awesome question because it's a matter of how you're > >>> processing. > > >>> If, like you say in your bottom tag, you can only use empirical > >>> processing, then this may be the end of your line, Simon. > > >> Maybe. But, I may be wrong, so I don't want to leave any stone unturned. > > > Then you may have to take illogical actions. > > > If empiricism is one kind of radar that you know you have, in order to > > step outside of it, and possibly see things undetectable by your type > > of radar, you have to experiment with other types of discernment. > > > Have you ever been in a religion, ever? > > I studied Wei Shi Buddhism while I lived in China for a number of years. > I consider myself an adherent and I meditate regularly. Wei Shi means > roughly 'consciousness only' and it fit very well with my western > philosophical views. There are not many adherents, even in China, and I > was lucky to live near one of the very few temples that teach Wei Shi. >
I felt from your earlier posting that you were "searching" somehow. > >>> If you're here, and there's no God, what do you have? > > >>> Just you. > > >> Plus my daughter, my friends, my music, the fresh air, the stars, the > >> rivers and trees and insects and birds. It is all mine. > > > But you can't use their senses to detect the nature of reality. You > > can but that sounds like faith to me. > > Reality for me is a synthesization of others' realities Yes, from the perspective of your reality. and an > approximation in my own to reach a point of agreement about shared > realities. I have a rather different view of reality than many because I > am a synesthete, I hear sounds for colours and I see time as a physical > direction (I can literally 'look forward' to the past). > > >>> So all this divine simplicity, if it exists, where do you think it > >>> resides? > > >> That's my problem. Until I can see a difference between it and the > >> non-existent, how am I to tell? I don't want to waste a wonderful life > >> believing in the non-existent. All that I love about life is very much > >> existent. It would be a shame to ruin it. > > > You might have to go at it from the pandeist angle. Large religious > > experiences are reserved for those willing to give things up, even if > > those things are only styles of thinking. > > I have a rather eclectic style of thinking but the one that has always > made sense and risen above the others is Wei Shi and empirical naturalism. > > If something is presented that demands change, then change I shall. > What if the change didn't make sense empirically? > > A pandeist can ease into it. All that stuff you said, > > Pandeism seems completely pointless to me, as does plain old deism. I > can certainly find no reason to object to its claims but I see no point > to it either. > Why? When you said what you have, it included people, places and things.That implies a kind of connection, especially an enjoyment of connecting. > > "my daughter, my friends, my music, the fresh air, the stars, the > >> rivers and trees and insects and birds. It is all mine" > > > That's the mystic side of pandeism. You're already cool. > > ;) > > Life is an endless wonder of change. > And some say humor and paradox as well. > -- > "The foot feels the foot when it feels the ground." [Buddha] > > "One does what one is; one becomes what one does." > [Robert von Musil] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
