The Master Argument for Christianity???

[Joshpantera]

I happened across this guy who seems to be authentic. He seems to think that this argument arrangement is clever and smart. But of course, it isn't very smart at all, let alone strong, powerful, compelling, or anything remotely close.

 

It's very poorly framed emotional pleading with no real foundation or backbone. He has no evidence to support the premise, obviously. 

 

Here it is: 

 

 

 

Now, going back to the other discussion with @Edgarcito 

 

What if I simply took the only thing in life that we can be certain of - that we are aware and experiencing - and plugged it into this guys "Master Argument for Christianity?" And usurped him at his own game of emotional pleading? 

 

 

"The Master Counter Argument for Emotional Pleading Christian Apologetics" 

 

 

1) If non-dual, primary Consciousness is true, then even "more" good things are true than if dualistic Christianity were true (plug in those descriptions). 

 

2) Non-dual, primary Consciousness IS true! (plug in the various evidence and logical arguments from philosophy and science). 

 

3) Therefore, a lot of good things, much better than anything Christianity has to offer, that we all want, are true (plug in the details what those good things are and why they're better than anything Christianity has to offer). 

 

And just like that, I've trumped this guy via his own argument on the same emotional based playing field that he's trying to play on. 

[Edgarcito]

On 2/27/2023 at 10:05 PM, Joshpantera said:

I happened across this guy who seems to be authentic. He seems to think that this argument arrangement is clever and smart. But of course, it isn't very smart at all, let alone strong, powerful, compelling, or anything remotely close.

 

It's very poorly framed emotional pleading with no real foundation or backbone. He has no evidence to support the premise, obviously. 

 

Here it is: 

 

 

 

Now, going back to the other discussion with @Edgarcito 

 

What if I simply took the only thing in life that we can be certain of - that we are aware and experiencing - and plugged it into this guys "Master Argument for Christianity?" And usurped him at his own game of emotional pleading? 

 

 

"The Master Counter Argument for Emotional Pleading Christian Apologetics" 

 

 

1) If non-dual, primary Consciousness is true, then even "more" good things are true than if dualistic Christianity were true (plug in those descriptions). 

 

2) Non-dual, primary Consciousness IS true! (plug in the various evidence and logical arguments from philosophy and science). 

 

3) Therefore, a lot of good things, much better than anything Christianity has to offer, that we all want, are true (plug in the details what those good things are and why they're better than anything Christianity has to offer). 

 

And just like that, I've trumped this guy via his own argument on the same emotional based playing field that he's trying to play on. 

Argued this with Keith years ago Josh.  I'm just never going to be a non-dual guy.  One, someone's going to have to convince me that our thoughts on consciousness apply to a rock or space, etc.  I don't see it truthfully.  Kind of the end of the argument for me.  Secondly, per our understanding and imo, our consciousness within a primary consciousness would mean we are outcroppings of that consciousness.....and the kicker to that are the implications of that primary consciousness....i.e., are we free or predestined.  Ultimately we are still just subjects.  The Bible at least has a story to go with...lol.  

 

What's the use if I know, for example, that I, and you, and John, and Walter, are mouths for this primary consciousness.  And how can that be really if we don't resonate essentially.  In other words, why DON'T we share the same end game if, in fact, a primary conscious is aware.  

 

These are some of the questions I need addressed.  Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Argued this with Keith years ago Josh.  I'm just never going to be a non-dual guy.  One, someone's going to have to convince me that our thoughts on consciousness apply to a rock or space, etc.  I don't see it truthfully.  Kind of the end of the argument for me.  Secondly, per our understanding and imo, our consciousness within a primary consciousness would mean we are outcroppings of that consciousness.....and the kicker to that are the implications of that primary consciousness....i.e., are we free or predestined.  Ultimately we are still just subjects.  The Bible at least has a story to go with...lol.  

 

What's the use if I know, for example, that I, and you, and John, and Walter, are mouths for this primary consciousness.  And how can that be really if we don't resonate essentially.  In other words, why DON'T we share the same end game if, in fact, a primary conscious is aware.  

 

These are some of the questions I need addressed.  Thx.

 

No, that's not correct Ed.

 

If you read back through the all the posts about primary consciousness you won't find where Walter says that he holds to that worldview. 

 

What you will find are as follows.

 

1.

Where Walter points out that Occam's Razor favours the simpler explanation and Josh's explanation is the simpler.

 

2.

Where Walter asks you if the carbon atoms in your body belong to 'you' or belong to the universe.

 

3.

Where Walter cited two examples of scripture that appear to support Josh's worldview.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, that's not correct Ed.

 

If you read back through the all the posts about primary consciousness you won't find where Walter says that he holds to that worldview. 

 

What you will find are as follows.

 

1.

Where Walter points out that Occam's Razor favours the simpler explanation and Josh's explanation is the simpler.

 

2.

Where Walter asks you if the carbon atoms in your body belong to 'you' or belong to the universe.

 

3.

Where Walter cited two examples of scripture that appear to support Josh's worldview.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I didn’t say you did Walter, thx.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I didn’t say you did Walter, thx.

 

You implied it by lumping me with Josh, who does hold to that worldview.

 

And then calling me a mouthpiece for that worldview.

 

 

 

Sly.

 

[Edgarcito]

31 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You implied it by lumping me with Josh, who does hold to that worldview.

 

And then calling me a mouthpiece for that worldview.

 

 

 

Sly.

 

No, you didn't read "for example" ?  It was a hypothetical.   I don't hold that belief and I'm in the list as well.  Come on sir.  

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

No, you didn't read "for example" ?  It was a hypothetical.   I don't hold that belief and I'm in the list as well.  Come on sir.  

 

Ok, so if your comment was purely hypothetical, on the basis of what evidence would you know that I'm a mouth for primary consciousness?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok, so if your comment was purely hypothetical, on the basis of what evidence would you know that I'm a mouth for primary consciousness?

 

 

 

 

Without having delved into Josh's belief, what comes to mind is the use of the word primary.  We don't typically label something (1) unless there is a (2).  If we are part of the primary consciousness, then it would seem there only be one.....and given we are conscious and part of the universe, then our consciousness it one in the same.  Hence we all would be a "mouth".

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Without having delved into Josh's belief, what comes to mind is the use of the word primary.  We don't typically label something (1) unless there is a (2).  If we are part of the primary consciousness, then it would seem there only be one.....and given we are conscious and part of the universe, then our consciousness it one in the same.  Hence we all would be a "mouth".

 

Then why did you just list yourself, the Prof, Josh and me, when everyone would be a mouth, according to your logic?

 

Why select a few when it applies to all?

 

What I'm trying to drill down to here Ed is, did you include me in your list because of what I've written about primary consciousness recently?

 

If not, no problem.

 

But if you did because of what I've written then that's another matter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Then why did you just list yourself, the Prof, Josh and me, when everyone would be a mouth, according to your logic?

 

Why select a few when it applies to all?

 

What I'm trying to drill down to here Ed is, did you include me in your list because of what I've written about primary consciousness recently?

 

If not, no problem.

 

But if you did because of what I've written then that's another matter.

 

 

No sir, not at all.....again, was just a hypothetical off the top of my head.  I used us four because we are the typical group that cusses and discusses.  Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

45 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, not at all.....again, was just a hypothetical off the top of my head.  I used us four because we are the typical group that cusses and discusses.  Thx.

 

Then that's fine, Ed.

 

We've now established that your hypothetical had nothing to do with my input on the subject of primary consciousness.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

23 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Argued this with Keith years ago Josh.  I'm just never going to be a non-dual guy.  One, someone's going to have to convince me that our thoughts on consciousness apply to a rock or space, etc.  I don't see it truthfully.  Kind of the end of the argument for me.  Secondly, per our understanding and imo, our consciousness within a primary consciousness would mean we are outcroppings of that consciousness.....and the kicker to that are the implications of that primary consciousness....i.e., are we free or predestined.  Ultimately we are still just subjects.  The Bible at least has a story to go with...lol.  

 

The links to Analytic Idealism that I gave you before do explain these questions.

 

There is panpsychism, which is a dualist belief. When you're talking about rocks or anything not 'alive and metabolizing' having consciousness, that is a type of panpsychism belief, not Analytic Idealism. The idea behind panpsychism is that 1) matter has standalone existence and 2) consciousness exists in all matter. That's why it's a dualist belief, it isn't non-dual. 

 

Analytic Idealism posits that matter has no standalone existence. What looks like matter - rocks, elements, material bodies even - are appearances that take place in Consciousness.

 

It's more like the whole universe is "like" a dream state for infinite Consciousness. Where it spawns off little versions of itself as finite consciousness. The only things that have inner experience, is Mind at Large (universal consciousness of the whole), as a 'conscious field' of sorts in which everything exists - "lives, moves, and has it's being." 

 

Sound familiar?

 

As in the infinite God morphs itself into little versions of itself, or 'sons of god.' This is obviously metaphor, but it describes the idea of One infinite Consciousness breaking off Many finite versions of consciousness, which serve the purpose of inner experience. They are experiential entities within the Mind of Nature itself. Where all possible experiences take place. What feels good, what feels bad. What feels right, what feels wrong. Experience, experience, experience.

 

So yes, we are outcroppings of the One infinite Consciousness in that sense. 

 

In myth, that means we are little versions of God. Made in the image of God doesn't really do it justice, but as a metaphor it tends to point one back to that sort of conclusion. The idea here is that a lot of the christian myth - though unconsciously - can be seen as going back to the same conclusions of many of the eastern myths. It's not as open and up front about it. It's foggy and more concealed. You have to pay closer attention to see it. 

 

But it's all there for the taking to anyone who does manage to see it. In a non-dual reality, all paths will lead back to the One. 

 

23 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

What's the use if I know, for example, that I, and you, and John, and Walter, are mouths for this primary consciousness.  And how can that be really if we don't resonate essentially.  In other words, why DON'T we share the same end game if, in fact, a primary conscious is aware.  

 

These are some of the questions I need addressed.  Thx.

 

You seem genuinely interested in the mysteries of consciousness. Even to the extent of at least thought experimenting outside of the christian orthodox norm. 

 

The use of identifying that myself, you, John, and Walter are mouths (experiential states) for this primary Consciousness, is basically nothing more complex than simply being aware of what's going on. Diversity of thought and opinion exists as part of the function, basically. Every mouth is necessarily a mouth for primary Consciousness. Regardless of any details. All thoughts, ideas, and expressions have to come from somewhere. And there's only One place to come from. 

 

In a very real sense, everyone's personal inner subjectivity is unique to that personal experience. Yours is unique to mine, mine is unique to yours. If the function has to do with 'all possible experiences' being carried out, well, then there you have it. 

 

This goes beyond where orthodox christianity is willing to go. 

 

Look at the popular catch phrase texts from this deeper perspective for a moment: 

 

"That which you (a finite experiential state of the Whole) do unto others (finite experiential states of the Whole) you have done unto Me (Whole itself)."

 

The dualistic way, this is a nice suggestion, but it no way has the powerful impact that it does when you look at from a non-dual perspective. You hurt someone, you are literally hurting yourself - because you and the other are the One primary Consciousness experiencing itself as Many. 

 

"That which you do unto the least of these, My brethren, you have done also unto Me." 

 

Do you see how different this is when you switch from the dualistic orthodox perspective to the mystical and unorthodox non-dual perspective? 

 

It has more impact. It makes the meaning clearer. It provides a reasonable window of insight as to what you're really doing when you're hurting others. It's always a self-interaction on the part of the Whole. It is killing parts of itself, it is raping parts of itself, or it is loving and being kind to its own parts. And the idea is to make the effort to stop hurting itself.

 

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

 

"The Master Counter Argument for Emotional Pleading Christian Apologetics" 

 

 

1) If non-dual, primary Consciousness is true, then even "more" good things are true than if dualistic Christianity were true (plug in those descriptions). 

 

2) Non-dual, primary Consciousness IS true! (plug in the various evidence and logical arguments from philosophy and science). 

 

3) Therefore, a lot of good things, much better than anything Christianity has to offer, that we all want, are true (plug in the details what those good things are and why they're better than anything Christianity has to offer). 

[midniterider]

If the FSM is true, then there is much noodley goodness coming up. 

 

The FSM is true. 

 

Ergo, much noodley goodness shall be forthcoming. 

 

Can I get a R'amen?