Consciousness is part of matter/energy. I grasp it fine. It’s why I’m able to refute your assertions. No, I’m pointing out reality to you. Of course I would. You would need to provide evidence for such a claim.
No, Allah is the Creator of the gods that Jews and Christians worship; indeed, Allah is not a god. Christians and Jews appeal to personalities (Jesus and Judah) but Muslims submit to Reality. The universe is a manifestation of the Power of Allah, and worshipping Allah is being in tune with Reality. BS, as I’m not looking for evidence of a god. I simply submit to Reality, and witness Truth. Only in your world.
Would it then be correct to assume that the idea of a “sky god” or supreme being was “always there” as far as deity-based religions are concerned? You are correct in assuming so. You raise interesting points, but would you agree that the “adoption of one or more of those deities” was a reflection of archaic Greeks and Italians becoming more sophisticated in terms of civilizational development?
Yes. Sorry. You can’t claim it is reality or truth if you can’t produce a single shred of evidence to support its existence. No, also the one you inhabit.
Sufism delves into the mystical aspects of Islam, so yes, I am indeed offering a metaphysical outlook on the subject. Jews don’t worship Judah, but the Jews nevertheless base their religion on a personality. They are essentially the tribe of Judah, who worship their god in the context of this tribe. As far as Islam goes, however, Allah is the Lord of all humanity; regardless if they are Jewish or atheist or whatever. Allah is not a god in heaven that people pray to. Allah is the only Reality and Truth, and Muslims are witnesses to this Truth.
Nonsense; a fish can’t produce evidence of the ocean because it so completely immersed in it. Likewise, humanity is wholly immersed in Allah/God; and the only way to produce proof of Him is to somehow traverse outside Him, which is nonsensical. Like I said, this is why we experience and witnessTruth, not look for evidence of it.
the ocean is a measurable, observable and provable phenomenon. your assertions regarding the existence of your god are baseless unsupportable nonsense, which you are fully aware, and is why you can't provide a single shred of evidence of it's existence. Your god is exactly as real as zues, harry potter, pink unicorns and yeti's. if you "experience" something, it is part of physical reality and you should be able to provide evidence of it's existence. You can't do that, because your god is a human invention, like every other god in human history.
Not to the fish, as it is completely immersed in it. Experiencing Truth means perceiving the world from a non-dualistic standpoint; where one’s conditioned personal being does not get in the way of Reality. Since Allah is One, and Allah is the only real existence, a human mind that perceives from a position of duality (where concepts like good vs bad exist) will not come to the ultimate realization that behind everything is the Light if Allah. Ergo, one will experience the world by reacting to it as if Allah was not behind it all, like yourself
incorrect. the fish is able to observe its surroundings. A fish knows the difference between being in water, and being in air. unsupportable nonsense. which is what every other person believes about every other god ever imagined by humans throughout the entirety of human history. All of which have exactly the same amount of evidence for their existence, which is zero. You can not get around this fact no matter how badly it crushes your ideology.
Yes, its immediate surroundings. It will have to exit the ocean to observe the ocean, however. You can’t call it “unsupportable nonsense” without even attempting the hypothesis. Exactly, but Allah is the only existence, and thus there is no I. What anyone believes is irrelevant, because it will always come from an egoic source, but Allah is the only Reality. I’m glad you’re finally catching on....
It's completely relevant to your opinion, which is an opinion that authorities far more competent and knowledgable than yourself happen to disagree with it. That doesn't answer my question. How can Goomba, or anyone else for that matter, present evidence of an incorporeal entity to you? Some might say that's beyond the realm of possibility. That doesn't answer my question. As for the burden of evidence, that also applies to the people who claim that "God" doesn't exist. Which is a fair challenge, however your inability to perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It goes without saying that the perceptual faculties of human beings are extremely limited, to say the least.
no, it is observing the ocean while it is in it. of course I can. You are making the assertion and bear the burden of proof. this is a bald assertion with no evidence to support it. Every other person in every other religion believes their god is the only one too. this is a bald assertion with no evidence to support it. Every other person in every other religion believes their god is the only one too. I've always caught it, it's why i'm able to show your position is nonsense and unsupportable.
it is not an opinion that Christians, jews and muslims worship the god of Abraham. this is fact. it directly answered your question. Anything that exists must be able to be observed. Provide evidence of it's existence. I don't claim god doesn't exist. None existence is the default position. the one making the assertion of existence bears the sole burden of proof. I've never stated otherwise. The facts remain however. None belief is the default position to any claim of existence, absent evidence.
Er, it doesn’t know it’s the ocean unless it exits it. All it presently sees is water, and it can only know its been residing in the ocean this whole time if it leaves it and observes the body of water as whole. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend? No, because Truth can only be perceived from an individual experience, and unless you test the hypothesis yourself, you can’t say anything. Except that I clearly didn’t argue that. I didn’t say that Allah “is the only god.” I argued that Allah is the only real existence, period. I’m sure you have...
false. it knows it's the ocean, as it's in the ocean. Same we we know we are on land, because we can observe being on land. Al false. it knows it's the ocean, as it's in the ocean. Same we we know we are on land, because we can observe being on land. it is incorrect. false. if you assert something exists, you bear the sole burden of proof to show it exists. which is an unsupportable bald assertion.
False equivalency. We may live and walk on the land, but we are not completely immersed in it. The fish are observing water; they do not know it’s the ocean, as they are wholly immersed in it. Nonsense, as I’m not asserting something exists, but that I do not exist. How come?
If those deity-based religions are monotheistic I think an argument can be made and supported there. On the other hand, when we consider the primeval, polytheistic religion of the early Greeks and Italians who worshipped their ancestors as their gods and creators and had no concept of a supreme being/deity, I don't think that assumption can be made. When studying the primeval religion of those people, I was impressed at how limited their concepts of creation were. In fact, the lack of curiosity and intellectual effort they put into exploring the questions surrounding creation leads one to conclude that it wasn't something that they were terribly interested in. I guess this could be expected of people who were relatively primitive and preoccupied with the day-to-day struggle to survive. Sitting around contemplating the mysteries of the universe was a luxury they didn't have. I absolutely do agree, and I think their embrace of Christianity was a reflection of their increasing sophistication and civilizational development, as well. In fact, the seeds of Western liberalism (in the classical and/or libertarian sense) were planted by Paul the Apostle in Greece, where he disseminated the ideas promulgated by Jesus about our equality in the eyes of God and how we as individuals are defined by our own thoughts, words, deeds and moral agency, regardless of our family, sex, status, freedom/slavery, wealth/poverty, power/weakness, etc.. These concepts were relatively if not completely alien to the ancients where inequality was accepted as a matter of nature and law. Of course, the ideas Paul preached in first century Greece would evolve further over time, and counter to the anti-clerical narratives that emerged out of the Enlightenment, they evolved through the Catholic Church and figures such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and William of Occam, to name just a few. The Protestant Revolution was also a reflection and product of the increasing sophistication of people's beliefs and civilizational development.
It's an opinion that they are the same God. Where do you think that Goomba got the idea that him and I have been discussing about how the Ancient Greeks and Romans "corrupted the true Oneness of God"? Could it be on account of the different conceptions of God that exist within the Abrahamic faiths? Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. Everything that exists is not perceptible. Evidently, it's the default position for some atheists. You still haven't answered my question about how Goomba is supposed to present evidence of an incorporeal entity to you. How do you propose he be able to pull off such a neat trick?
it is not a false equivalence, for reasons I outlined. . but we have evidence that you do exist. because you haven't supported it
no, it is not an opinion that all 3 worship the god of Abraham. It has to do with the human invention that is religion, and every god throughout history. Strawman. I didn't say this. it's the default position for every human on earth. already answered. by presenting evidence of it's existence.
And I rebutted you reasons. Again, you stated: This is not the same thing as being immersed completely in the land. Just admit you’re wrong and move along. But you don’t have evidence that “I” exist in an absolute sense, or that my existence is separate in nature. You have no evidence what the real condition of my existence assumes. You don’t know whether my existence is relative or not. All you have is conjecture. I don’t have to, and it wouldn’t matter if I did, because you would still perceive reality from a position where you think you are a separate existence; and not a relative one.
why would I admit I was wrong, when I refuted your point? this is false. that we are interacting, and have a written record of that interaction is evidence you exist. You could certainly be some form of AI, but unlikely. if you assert the existence of your god, you bear the sole burden of proving it. sorry.
