Peanut Gallery for JoshPantera vs. Endgarcito3

[WalterP]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Did you really expect there to be a clear, objective "winner" in a debate over a topic as subjective as spiritual "superiority"?  You, a self-professed champion of logic and reason? 

 

My expectations have no bearing on the outcome of the debate.

 

Because, according to these posts...

 

...it's for the RedneckProf to declare the identity of the last man standing?

Nevertheless, not thy will, but mine, be done.

I thought so.

Thank you for confirming.

 

The outcome was to be decided by you.

 

That's why I asked you for your decision, 19 hours ago.

 

For the record, my query was polite, courteous and respectful of your authority.

 

No fault or blame can be laid at my door.

 

In asking that question I did nothing to annoy you or question your authority.

 

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Did Josh do a better job of presenting his case?  Sure.  Did he demonstrate that his spirituality is the superior one?  Not to my satisfaction; and, as you're on record as disagreeing with him in all but the sciency bits, not to yours either.  

 

Then, why didn't you just say this 19 hours ago, in a clear and direct response to my clear and direct question?

 

I liked your humorous response, btw.

 

But I was still interested in finding out your judgment.

 

Which is why I tried again, still being polite and courteous towards you.

 

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And the simple truism is that the superior spirituality is the one that helps an individual become a better person or live a better life.  Mysticism works for some; science works for others.  Apparently for Josh, scientifical mysticism is the bee's knees.  But, is it superior?  My answer is no.

 

Again, why not just say so when politely asked?

 

Now there's a nasty tension between us that was not of my making.

 

One joke at my expense I don't mind, but two goes too far.

 

However, can we please both try to build a better relationship, Professor?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

I don't think either won the debate simply because no one can win such a debate.

 

It's akin to debating about "How long is a piece of string?"

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

...it's for the RedneckProf to declare the identity of the last man standing?

Nevertheless, not thy will, but mine, be done.

I thought so.

Thank you for confirming.

This comment was made after you gave a grandiose speech about Edgarcito "respecting me" and "submitting to my authority."  This was a subtle way of letting you know that it is not your place to dictate policy on this website.  It's not your place to determine how threads or debates should be handled, nor is it your place to demand/expect others respect anybody's "authority."  Certainly not my "authority."  I'm just a guy who hung around here long enough to be made use of; and I am grateful for the role I get to play here. 

 

It is, however, my job, alongside the other Moderators to monitor each post in every thread in all the forums on this website.  It is our place to determine the policy here, how threads are conducted, what is appropriate behavior, and what posts are acceptable.   We also protect this site, and its members, from spammers, trolls, bots of various stripe, and... spoofers.  For the most part, we take a hands-off approach and let the members police themselves.  Do not mistake this relative autonomy as a gap you need to fill.  It is not. 

 

This is not the first time you and I have drawn swords over this issue.  See to it that it is the last.  Welcome to your place, son; enjoy your stay.

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

Then, why didn't you just say this 19 hours ago, in a clear and direct response to my clear and direct question?

I didn't answer 19 hours ago because Ms. Professor and I were being intimate, or because Professor Jr and I were playing cards, or because I was in the workshop making a nice table for my living room out of an old sewing machine stand and a slab of walnut, or because of some other reason.  I did, however, give a humorous response that was also a subtle way of letting you know that I would not be answering your question.  Nevertheless you persisted.  So my second response was a little more pointed; and the humor had a bit more bite to it.  You still saw fit to hound the issue.  And now you're whining about tension between us and why don't I make Josh feel like a loser, too.

 

For the record, it is now 15:33 EDT on Wednesday 28 April 2021 and I still have not answered your question beyond acknowledging it.

 

It seems apparent that subtlety is not your strong suit.  Atypical for someone of British origin.  In future I will be more direct.  Your butthurt, passive-aggressive approach to conflict does not become you.  You should stop it.

 

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

No fault or blame can be laid at my door.

One who blames another has not yet begun the journey.

One who blames oneself is well on the way.

One who blames no one has arrived.

 

Congratulations on being blameless.

 

Honestly,  Walt, I think the question you need to ask yourself is why it matters so much to you that a definite "winner" be declared.  I have a few ideas, if your introspection needs a nudge in the right direction.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

It's akin to debating about "How long is a piece of string?"

If we presuppose the string to be 6 inches long, then we can definitely demonstrate that the total length is 15.24cm.  This can be supported by string theory.

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And the simple truism is that the superior spirituality is the one that helps an individual become a better person or live a better life.  Mysticism works for some; science works for others.  Apparently for Josh, scientifical mysticism is the bee's knees.  But, is it superior?  My answer is no.

 

This is interesting. Because the debate is simply between pantheistic spirituality versus monotheistic spirituality. And you conclude that the pantheistic is not superior to the monotheistic varieties of spirituality. 

 

I can see where you're going with the superior being which ever helps someone live a better life and be a better person. That makes sense.

 

To get to where I'm trying to go self realization has to play into the mix. As the height of spiritual self realization. Because of the issues with John and the possibility of Buddhist influence, "Thou Art That" can be placed as the peak of the possibility of spiritual experience. Termed the mystical realization. 

 

Ed needs someone to help him argue his side. 

 

And it looks like it boils down to whether or not I can frame the argument this way. And if I can, then we can ask how do various spiritual beliefs get a person to this attainment. Or whether they ever do get followers to this attainment at all? I don't see any other way of setting up a scale where we could judge one path as superior to another without the final goal being laid out plainly. 

 

I went ahead with trying to work out an agreed definition of spirituality. Beyond that I'm looking at the above as a way of proceeding. If the above is not possible, then it may be that the debate is not possible. 

 

 

[midniterider]

If you had fun then you won!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

37 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

This is interesting. Because the debate is simply between pantheistic spirituality versus monotheistic spirituality. And you conclude that the pantheistic is not superior to the monotheistic varieties of spirituality.

I'm not sure that "conclude" is the most accurate way to describe my statement.  To begin with, I used the word "truism" specifically over "truth" precisely because I don't think my statement is Truth so much as it is generally true for most spiritual-seeking people..  Secondly, I think spirituality often mirrors physicality in some ways.  As an example blood sugar medicines necessarily pander to individual metabolism.  There's no one-pill-cures-all; but, rather this pill for you, that combination of pills for me.  I don't conclude that any form of spirituality is superior; rather that what works for one man is superior for him.

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There's no one-pill-cures-all; but, rather this pill for you, that combination of pills for me.  I don't conclude that any form of spirituality is superior; rather that what works for one man is superior for him.

 

This is by no means an easy debate to wage. Unless we find some more perspective. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, midniterider said:

If you had fun then you won!

 

There will be participation trophies passed out at the end. 

[LogicalFallacy]

So now we are debating who won the debate? Ok.

 

I think anybody who came away from it with something new they were exposed to or thought about won.

 

As far as the actual debate I don't think we got past sorting a coherent definition of spirituality therefore it was a debate of passing ships IMO.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So now we are debating who won the debate? Ok.

 

I think anybody who came away from it with something new they were exposed to or thought about won.

 

As far as the actual debate I don't think we got past sorting a coherent definition of spirituality therefore it was a debate of passing ships IMO.

 

I'm trying to figure out how end fancies himself the winner. I think in essence what he is saying about his personal spiritual experience as a Christian and Josh's general definition of spirituality are in essence the same. However Josh isn't presenting it from a purely biblical perspective. And it seems to me thats where the line is drawn with end. End is wanting Josh to describe how he is spiritually superior as a Christian. Which can't be done because Josh is not a Christian anymore. 

 

What End can't comprehend (from what I'm seeing) is that other religions and forms of spirituality, whatever they may be, have the same feeling of connection to Deity or some other higher connection. And they feel that that connection leads their lives just as he feels the "Holy spirit" leads his. In his mind, if it isn't a connection to the Christian God than it isnt the same. But it is. It is the same. If not more spiritual. Tibetan monks,  for instance, probably have a far more superior form of spirituality than that of Christians. The feeling of spirituality comes from the mind, when a person reaches a resolve mentally that connects them to "whatever". Nature, God, the universe, etc

 

A broader definition as Josh has put forth is really the only way this debate can be made. And from that standpoint I believe Josh would be the victor because there are other religions, as previously mentioned, that would trump most if not all Chrsitians. But I dont think Josh will have the opportunity to expound on the different forms of spirituality that are greater because End probably won't accept them. This debate has been spinning in circles from the beginning. 

 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

And they feel that that connection leads their lives just as he feels the "Holy spirit" leads his. In his mind, if it isn't a connection to the Christian God than it isnt the same. But it is. It is the same. If not more spiritual. Tibetan monks,  for instance, probably have a far more superior form of spirituality than that of Christians. The feeling of spirituality comes from the mind, when a person reaches a resolve mentally that connects them to "whatever". Nature, God, the universe, etc

 

The above I think is true especially considering the example of Ed. Do these Tibetan monks think of spirituality as a situation where you latch on to a god viewed as outside of the universe in hopes that their individual ego conscious that they're experiencing right now, will go on forever in place of gold and riches? 

 

Of course they don't.

 

Because their form of spiritual thinking is about transcending or going beyond the levels of spiritual thinking that christians engage in. The problem we seem to face here is the word superior. Sure whatever works for someone to live a better life is superior for them. But that doesn't mean that the spiritual tradition that they adhere to is superior to alternative choices of spiritual tradition. Against the over arching possibilities of spiritual insight on a humanity wide scale. Human potential. 

 

If christianity claims a superior spiritual tradition to the world, then we need to compare christianity to "the world." 

 

We're debating pantheistic philosophy versus monotheistic beliefs. If it so happens that the monotheism is good for Ed, and he feels like it's superior, that doesn't mean that the monotheism actually is superior up against the pantheistic philosophy. Nor that they are equal just because people from both sides won't agree. 

 

I do maintain that they are not equal. And that monotheism is not superior over pantheism. And I will continue to maintain that argument. If Ed will stay in the debate and answer specific questions I can establish this very easily. If he dodges, that delays the debate. But I do have the ability to shut this thing down and demonstrate firmly why pantheistic philosophy trumps monotheistic belief. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There will be participation trophies passed out at the end. 

I just got them from the shop on Monday afternoon.  What do y'all think?

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Everyone wins!

[florduh]

Everyone wins! Nobody wins! Now we're just that much closer to our final breath!

 

[midniterider]

"Does a rock have a spiritual experience?  Gluons therefore spiritual...."

 

 

 

Why does Ed pretend like he cannot understand pantheism or advaita? Why is it that Josh 'does' understand Christianity and pantheism and advaita? Both men are quite intelligent.

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

"Does a rock have a spiritual experience?  Gluons therefore spiritual...."

 

 

 

Why does Ed pretend like he cannot understand pantheism or advaita? Why is it that Josh 'does' understand Christianity and pantheism and advaita? Both men are quite intelligent.

 

I don't know if he's pretending or really doesn't understand. I'm treating it like he honestly doesn't understand. So if some people reading don't get it yet either, maybe it will make better sense to them as well if they hang in there and look at the situation one step at a time. Instead of getting lost in how and why the conclusions are presented as they are when jumping ahead to my cited quotes and video lecture from Alan Watts. 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Quote

All present is not equal to all of something.  (Be careful, you're about the make a case for communion...)  

 

Well, that's an interesting definition.  If All present doesn't mean All then what is excluded? And following, what term would be used to encompass "All of All"?

 

Methinks Ed is playing "hide the ball".

[midniterider]

Ed: I see God independently from his creation. 

 

...

 

The Bible says the kingdom of God is inside you....

 

Another pointer to omnipresence. Non separation. Nonduality. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Ed: I see God independently from his creation. 

 

...

 

The Bible says the kingdom of God is inside you....

 

Another pointer to omnipresence. Non separation. Nonduality. 

Ah, but Ed will say that the kingdom of god is not the same as god himself.  That the kingdom is an ideal or a connection of thought processes between people, and of a different essence than god.  Because god is spirit and thought is... not physical... unsure of the mechanisms... grace and relationships.

[midniterider]

".....communion puts the Kingdom of God within you."

 

If the Kingdom of God is within me, then I Am That in which the Kingdom resides. That would be bigger than a bag of skin and bones and flesh and stuff.

 

Ramana Maharshi's 'self inquiry' is a communion with one's own Self. Isnt the ultimate 'communion' in discovering that there was a false notion of separation between 'you' and 'not  you' ? What greater communion can there be but the realization that the real you is all that exists? 

 

Zazen, sitting meditation, is designed to quiet the mind so the idea of separation can fall away and let you realize your non-dual nature as all. A form of communion. 

 

The Zen koan is designed to frustrate and hopefully short circuit logical reasoning so that one may realize their non-dual nature which transcends logic and thought. 

 

Self inquiry (Who am I), zazen, koans ... three mechanisms (off the top of my head) for the ultimate 'communion' with Self. 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ah, but Ed will say that the kingdom of god is not the same as god himself.  That the kingdom is an ideal or a connection of thought processes between people, and of a different essence than god.  Because god is spirit and thought is... not physical... unsure of the mechanisms... grace and relationships.

 

Ed cant deny the bible's words that the kingdom of god is inside us ... but then I guess at the same time, God, who I would think lives in that Kingdom, is also somehow separate from us. 

 

Some thrive on 'dependence' on a deity. I dont , really. 

[Joshpantera]

7 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Ed cant deny the bible's words that the kingdom of god is inside us ... but then I guess at the same time, God, who I would think lives in that Kingdom, is also somehow separate from us. 

 

Yeah, there's no way out of it. 

 

Immanent and transcendent mean both inside of and outside of the universe. Inside of the creation and beyond what can be observed. Both. It isn't one or the other. It's not transcendent and NOT immanent. 

 

 

[WalterP]

Yeah Josh, I've been doing it for years, but now it's viable when YOU present the analogies? (It was never viable before at ExChristian.net).  I don't think so from a rigid science standpoint unless you can then take the "points to" message and run it through the scientific process.  NO, there is no difference.  You actually used the words "points to" in your texts.....which I believe is straight from the definition of anecdotal evidence.  It makes sense that if a Christian were wanting to demonstrate woo to a bunch of science people, that he would use science to sell the thoughts.  NOT the other way around.  You should have used HARD science to demonstrate woo, not woo to demonstrate woo.  You have just successfully added to my list......fat gluon paths are like the omnipresence of God.  Congratulations.

 

So let's sum up.  Josh has found a speculative piece of scientific research and has assigned the observations as evidence for his spirituality and labels his analogy and spirituality superior.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Neither hard nor soft science or any kind of science can prove or even provide evidence for or against anything spiritual.

 

Doing that is not within science's remit.

 

Science is totally agnostic about anything and everything spiritual.

 

That is why both Edgarcito and JoshPantera can only offer inferential arguments to support their models.

 

Neither can provide anything more.

 

But there is a measure that can be used to tell who's model of spirituality is more likely to be true.

 

Occam's Razor.

 

I suggest that the Razor be used on both models to see which is the simpler.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

Uses the Razor...

 

For Edgarcito's faith-based model of spirituality to be true, the following would have to be true.

 

1.   An eternal god would have to exist 'before' time and space began to exist.

2.  Time and space would not be eternal, but would require this god to create them.

3.  This eternal creator god would also be the creator of heaven, which exists differently from time and space.

4.  This god creates the earth, a garden and two innocent people to look after it.

5.  A rebel angel who has been cast out of heaven tricks the two people into disobeying god.

6.  Disobedience (sin) separates god from his people.

7.  God offers himself to himself as a sin sacrifice to bring people back into communion with god.

8.  Communion with god by faith is the basis of Edgarcito's model of spirituality

 

All of the eight steps listed above are required for Edgarcito's faith-based model of spirituality to be true.

 

Furthermore, none of these steps can be tested or verified with evidence.

 

They are all believed to be true by Edgarcito, by faith.

 

 

 

For JoshPantera's knowledge-based model of spirituality to be true, the following would have to be true.

 

1.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that the universe exists.

2.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that every part of the universe is interconnected with every other.

3.  Josh would have to have some knowledge that this interconnectedness is spiritual.

 

Josh has satisfied 1; he does know that the universe exists.

 

Josh has inferred from quantum science that 2 is true.

 

Josh has claimed that 2 indicates spirituality.

 

 

Summary

 

Occam's Razor suggests that Josh's model of spirituality is more likely to be true than Edgarcito's because it is simpler.

 

Furthermore, the first step of his model is open to testing and can be verified with evidence.

 

The second step, though inferential, suggests a mechanism through which the universe is interconnected with itself.

 

Josh's third step is no more testable than any of Edgarcito's eight steps.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Josh's model of spirituality wins by virtue of being simpler and by being partially verified with evidence.

 

Edgarcito's model of spirituality loses because it is more complex and relies exclusively on faith, not evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.