45 responses to “Arguing with Atheists

  1. Took me a couple pages but I got into back in forth exchange this was fascinating. I’d say I’m an atheist at heart, but things said here definitely made me think. Certainly must admit each person’s view comes down to paradigm, and both sides use their paradigm as if it’s “reality.”

    I also liked you’re analogy of infinity, something new for me to think about how the universe works. Very interesting.

    Thank you

    • Yes thank you … it’s true “the nature of infinity” is something many people often don’t understand when it comes to this discussion. It adds a level of uncertainty to the “potentials” involved that even most physicists will not deny.

      • If I may add to what JKHD says with regard to the reality paradigm. In my view, to play along with your theme, although their perceived outward intention would be to explain reality, the Atheist would be talking along the lines of the accepted paradigm of reality, bolstering what we can test for ourselves and what we should already know. The believer on the other hand wants to present a new paradigm (paradigm being reality) by throwing in ideas that people can raise from the dead, multiply food to feed thousands, heal all kinds of diseases by a mere touch, talking snakes etc. This isn’t reality yet this is what they’re promoting.

      • Well, you are not “wrong.”

        However, I would think the term “accepted” is as relative in this case as is “paradigm.” And, referring to “believers” as one with “ideas that people can raise from the dead, multiply food to feed thousands, heal all kinds of diseases by a mere touch, talking snakes” (while I’m sure only an example) would be a fairly narrow definition of “belief” – at least as it regards “potential” for an intelligence existing beyond mankind’s available perception.

        Therefore, I would argue that “atheism talks along the accepted paradigm of reality,” if by doing so it means to profess a (certain) belief that life and/or the universe is merely random, or that a creative force (surely) does not exist.

        In other words, no paradigm or it’s resulting theories can make “claims of fact” in this regard – which would require the honest view to acknowledge a (real) “potential” exists for the contrary; that “an intelligence” or “a creative force” may exist beyond what mankind’s abilities are at this time able to measure.

        Thank you for sharing 🙂

      • Ah interesting viewpoint here. I guess I need to be clearer – I think that those who follow a paradigm that isn’t supported by how the usually perceive the world – e.g, God watches us, punishes us, answers prayer etc – for which there’s no empirical evidence for, no matter how much it means to someone – it simply isn’t true. I would regard the atheist paradigm as one which wants to encourage the abandonment of crazy beliefs and recognise the laws of nature and limits to reality.
        I actually don’t think that life is random, in the sense that Evolution is a natural process, but natural selection is not random at all.
        Finally, in your final paragraph you mentioned that no one should make ‘claims of face in this regard’. I applaud you for this comment, but you will find that an atheist should not profess to be able to disprove God as he cannot – God is disprovable. Yet, a believer in the Bible or the Qur’an will claim to ‘know’ the answer to life for certain, they will claim to be sure of their saviour and absolutely convinced that he is real and teach people that he is. This is the most worrying part of religion – their refusal to admit that they’re taking a wild stab at trying to explain the origins of the universe and it is very unlikely that they’re correct, considering the numerous attempts to the do the same thing – but they won’t, they make radical and dangerous truth claims that are the opposite of reality.

      • Hi Troymo, I was re reading this and wanted to take another bite out of it.

        relating to how you compared the atheist perspective with the idea of the supernatural – I want to say that the examples I referred to (talking snakes, resurrection etc) isn’t a narrow perspective but probably the most abundant and mildest of the crazy beliefs that come with religion. I think it’s fair to say that a huge chunk of the world believe in resurrection and a bigger chunk believe in the genesis account of talking snakes. Anyway, I must argue against your idea that atheism is a sort of belief system of randomness. I would say that atheism is the opposite to a belief system – it is simply the conviction that there’s no evidence to support a particular proposition. Nothing more and is evidence based, not requiring belief in anything beyond. The extend of my atheism would be that there’s. I evidence to suggest that any of the world’s religious teachings are true. In fact, evidence of Natural Laws would very clearly indicate that the very foundations of their claims are not only unlikely, but impossible. I would consider it irrational to believe in the opposite

      • Yes, I would not say atheism is a belief in “randomness,” and do agree there is an “intent” (implied or otherwise) which seems to drive natural selection.

        Nevertheless, many existing beliefs, stemming from an “atheistic view,” do see the universe itself as “chance occurrence.” And so, this is what I refer to when using a term like “merely random.”

        However, I would also (tend) to argue that “evidence of Natural Laws would very clearly indicate that the very foundations of (their) claims are not only unlikely, but impossible” since this would be a statement of “fact,” as it regards the “potential” origins of our universe, and consequently mankind’s existence.

        Of course, I do understand the reason for making such a statement – and would not deny assertions made by (some) religions do (in many ways) seem “unlikely.”

        However, since science is nowhere near understanding the “cause” or “function” of (what appears to be) the “observable universe,” I believe such statements should be avoided, and begin a path toward folly; toiling too close to one’s “established paradigm” – whereby a view of “fact” may be perceived (in regard to “negative evidence”) where fact does not exist.

        Therefore, I use these definitions in regard to “non belief” –

        Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

        Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (though I think “atheism-light” would be the same as this description of “agnostic,” having removed the words “as God” from its definition).

        I would also add that (though I gather by your comments you already understand) my exploration of “paradigm” here is not so much meant to be study of “reality” (though it – on some level – inherently is), but more an examination of the foundations for which “conscious beings” rest their beliefs.

        Paradigm: Relationship of ideas to one another: in philosophy and science, a generally accepted model of how ideas relate to one another, forming a conceptual framework within which scientific research and thought is carried out. A mold, standard; ideal, paragon, touchstone.

        And so, anything I’ve written should be considered accordingly 🙂

        Btw, great comments…. You might also enjoy another piece I wrote which focuses more closely on the (available) evidence underpinning much of our discussion.

        Please note – You will also find an interesting video embedded at the end of this piece, which explores many of the same ideas we discussed here – from a more “philosophical perspective,” and which (like us) finds no need for “snakes, and rising dead” in the debate.

  2. Lol … guess your right, if we can’t find it with 5 senses then it just leaves math and machines. Guess so far we’re pretty limited. Weird stuff!

  3. Hi troymo, thanks for reaching out. I’d say I appreciate your more agnostic approach. I think it lends itself to much more openness, honesty, and balance than most atheists. I think most atheists have a hard time with that type of openness and are more dogmatic in their denial of the possibility of God. Apart from these thoughts, I know that as a Christian presuppositionalist I would have had a very different conversation with the people you interacted with!

    • Thank you … yes, I’m certainly not atheist. The aim is to draw atheists in by having a discussion about things which they can relate to, and then show them their view of the world is just “a belief system” (nothing more); same as the way they view Christianity, or other religions. That said, I’m just as interested in what believers have to say on the subject.

      When you really look at the science you see there’s nothing “fantasy” about the “potential for God,” at least not the way so many atheists like to think. Therefore I like to think math and science can be used to show them it’s worth having a second look.

      Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it 🙂

      • Here’s where I get confused though. Why do you believe God isn’t fantasy? Obviously, you don’t believe in all the potential Gods, so, if I look at all the collected history, of the human race, how are we supposed to know if we have chosen the correct one? If I had been born in Dubai, wouldn’t I be Muslim? Or Nepal? I might have been a Buddhist. This is what really confuses me. Are Indian people wrong? What if they are right?

        I keep feeling like we would see more supernatural things…or at least we should, right? But, we don’t see any.

      • Yes, I hear you. Frankly, I would never say any of the world’s religions are either right or wrong; certainly, historically speaking they are all “right” at some level.

        That said, my piece here was more about illustrating elements of our universe which currently remain FAR beyond our ability to “perceive,” and as such may hold “answers” to the questions you’ve asked, and more. Furthermore, given that infinity may be a factor in this equation, we may never fully “perceive” the “complete” nature of our universe from within 3 dimensions. And, so I think it’s worth asking ourselves “just what does that mean?”

        I think it can be said also, with all the unknowns there remain plenty of opportunity for how “man” may fit into things, beyond what we currently understand or perceive; spiritually, infinitely, extra-terrestrially, or otherwise. And, it is my belief that anyone exerting an opinion in this matter as though it were “fact,” whether from a perspective of theology or not, is only doing so as a matter of “paradigm” whether realized or not (since most it would seem do not understand how “paradigm” relates to their belief system).

        Like you say, if I were born in Dubai “I would likely be Muslim,” and it is very difficult for people to remove themselves from the foundation which they evolved, which only hinders their ability to objectively consider that which is beyond their physical perception (IE – five senses, tools of science, or however they measure the universe or world around them at any given moment).

        You are correct that it can be said none of the evidence proves the existence of God. It can also equally be said however, that with all the evidence God so far remains something not yet been proven. You ask, where are all the “supernatural” things? For now I would point to –

        Light barrier – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds
        Quantum Entanglement – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
        Fibonacci – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
        DNA – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

        As (just a few) things which all remain beyond man’s current understanding (or have elements of their formation and/or structure beyond our understanding) and therefore “in a manner of speaking” could be defined as “supernatural” (since we cannot explain how they work within the confines of nature, as we understand it). At the very least, we have no way of knowing what a complete understanding of each of these phenomena would mean and where each could take us if we did. It may be such an understanding would only bring us that much closer to the doorstep of God. Who knows?

        Certainly, given these unknowns, it is possible HE or IT is “out there,” or “in here,” or “somewhere,” and these are things (or “a” thing) we are just not able to perceive; at least not through science, and not yet.

        Of course 75% of the planet would tell you they CAN perceive God. Though not by looking out, but by looking in 😉

        You may also enjoy another piece I wrote entitled “OMG … Where are You?”

        Thanks for sharing

      • That second look is always the one that matters. Most Atheist are not always ready to view issues of a ‘Supreme Being’ with an open mind. But I think I just got a weapon from visiting your lovely blog. Thanks for liking mine.
        Tai Fasina


    • Fraid I can’t completely agree …. article in the link I provided had 3 of 4 atheists admitting their view was a matter of opinion and that, according to the evidence, it could only be shown (at best) to be “paradigm.”

      IE – the first step to having a discussion about such things is to acknowledge one’s “relative” perspective 🙂

  4. I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought
    this post was great. I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a famous blogger if you
    are not already 😉 Cheers!

  5. “So, the question as to whether or not I fall under the second definition of atheism again would be a matter of choice. For instance, if you asked if I believe in a supreme being of some kind I would refer you to my previous statement: that I do not believe in any “known quantity,” since what I believe is “possible” can not be known (I will show you why this in a moment). However, if you asked if I believe in the possibility of an intelligence which could exist in omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent form I would say, “yes.” And as such, it is my opinion that I fall in between any definition we have so far provided for one’s “view of God,” in this discussion.”

    Dear Troymo:

    You are a Muslim in the making, keep digging with the same level of criticism and skepticism. M.H. supports and encourages you to not settle until you have a satisfying answer.

    There is a form of Atheism that is a rushed analysis to reach a desired or targeted conclusion. That form annoys me at times. It is intellectually dishonest and lazy — very similar to the erroneous dogmas some atheists reject.

    Then there is your position, an honest struggle to find some solid footing in a dark alley filled with obstacles. It is not easy. Concession to errors is also not an option. After all, what would be the point of becoming a self-respected atheist in the first place.

    Insha Allah (if God wills), the plan is to write a post about the connection between atheism and Islam soon, perhaps a “Muslim Dilemma.”.

    The only advice for now is, what I had to bear not too long ago, sometimes the answer lies in the place you may not initially want it to be. When one recognizes that, it creates humility and growth. Two immediate benefits to finding Islam, for instance.

    Kind regards from your brother in humanity,

    M.H. Editor

    • @muslimhaitian

      Thank you for your thoughts MH. Yes, humility is something I try to practice often. I am always searching, and certain I am (never) certain when it comes to these questions.

    • Wow! Now that’s what I call depth. I like the part where you wrote, “sometimes the answer lies in the place you may not intially want it to be.”
      This is so true and it brought a reaction of thoughts from me and I think I just got inspired to write something in that light. Thanks for the unconscious muse-duty **smiles** Ma-salaam, sir.

      Tai Fasina


      • Thanks for sharing taheesays … would love if you linked your next article, looking forward to what you have to say 🙂

  6. Pingback: Arguing with Atheists | kalountos

  7. All the arguments used againts there being a God, is what I tell Atheists ; “that is what I call God” Not a person in long white gown but the ‘ reasoning power ‘ behind every invention, every argument every planet, every reason for a planet and heavenly body existing. . the order of any thing you can think of, existing or having existed. That is what I call God. ANd here’s the kicker, That reasoning talks back to me. A lot. A whole lot. And has gotten me out of many a mess, and actually saved my life, literally, more than a handful of times. You see I am an adventurous person and a small time shaman. So I know first hand that no God is also God.

  8. Jesus said, “if one rose from the dead, they would not believe.” Jesus was saying that the problem with unbelief is not a lack of proof. Or that it is a condition of the “mind” – to be intellectually convinced. It is an “heart” condition: “the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it” (Jer.17:9). God tells us in Roman 1:21 (?) that ALL of us have ALL the proof we need to make a decision. Our problem is accepting God, in order that He can produce a change in us for the better. HOWEVER, in these LAST DAYS God IS giving us undeniable truth. One form of this truth, is that science has now discovered “7 layers” of complex coding in our DNA – one such layer is whole BOOKS of instructions are “a” palindrome & another layer is “encryption” within a “readable” visible language, another layer is 3D – yes! Instructions are stacked. And within that “stack” is another set of instructions that are holographic. By the way – thanks for your “follow” at: http://marioncheek.wordpress.com – God bless. All those that follow my Posts on “Best Bible Blog” are in my prayers. Watch my Blog for UPDATES on these new discoveries!

  9. Gloria Copeland of Gloria and Kenneth Copeland Ministries said on a ‘casette tape’ many years ago, The first thing a person should be taught to do after receiving Jesus as their Lord and Savior is to have the Holy Ghost give them the gift of speaking in tongues. As a person who was born and raised catholic, I can tell you that to this day, I have not met any catholic who has the gift of speaking in tongues. Grade School, High school, My first Cousin Sister Mary Benedict, my French teacher Father Pantin who became an Arch-Bishop, Arch-bishop Finbar Ryan the high School principal, never a word of the importance of the guidance of the Holy spirit came from them. I can only wonder why and question who are all these people who guided my spiritual belief system. Who’s that up there in the pulpit really? And since the way I came to be counseled by the Holy Spirit is an absolutely unquestionable miracle, I feel for the millions who have been deprived of a “Faith sealing” experience that removes all doubt about the teachings of Jesus, In spite of the corruption of all Churches.

  10. This is a very satisfying blog. I will study how you get such open mindedness from the participating Atheists.

    You have said that admission of “relative” viewpoint on your part is the secret. Possibly. But the budding of what approaches real contemplation, is a thing of beauty to witness.

    My “paradigm” begins with infinity. But the infinity of singularity, not that of self regulating sets. Those are second stage phenomena. Not really infinite. In fact, the essence of the finite. The emergent characteristic of Singularity.

    The Entirety. God.

    Following from this, is us. Related to it and not different from it. Knowing as self the one Self. Because it is.


    • Yes, well said…. I enjoy your styling and wisdom. I would say that (my) “relative perspective” is the only place to start when having a conversation with atheists, and so the best way to invite them (into) having a discussion about (their) relative perspective. I find I am often disappointed (with) how deeply lost people can become within their “relative paradigm.” This article therefore is an attempt to promote (such) awareness of just what “this” means, and how easily we are lost to it (myself included).

      You may enjoy another article I wrote which makes greater emphasis on just how different each of us can be – culturally, scientifically, literally; and how these things (much of which begins out of our control) shapes our world view.


      Thank you for you comment 🙂

    • I must say brmckay … I have given this some more thought as of late … and think I now take your comment quite differently. Yes, our “regulating sets” are the essence of “finite,” I agree.

      Furthermore, if I follow your thinking, “we” are (parts of/to) the “entirety,” further “realizing itself.”

      Therefore, not separate, but part of “the same.” Not “individual” but “evolving,” as “it” evolves thru our/this experience.

      Still, I believe “our experience” (as I have just suggested) is integral to the process. And, actually, REQUIRED (as described in my reply to Nearly Normal Fred, below) in order for this process (or God, “the entirety”) to fully realize itself, and/or evolve.

      “Reality,” relativity, and consciousness … a feedback loop – each part further defining the other – and so, ….”the entirety” revealed.

      • Thanks for the followup. Not sure if I can summon an adequate verbiage for the occasion, but will try. At least to make a statement or two.

        – The Perfection of Singularity expressing as Awareness. (Primordial “Self”).

        – “Our experience” expressing as change. Motion, around and through the resulting infinitude of compounding “perfectly” complementary poles.


        – The Absolute as Entirety. As Singularity. As Potential. As Foundation.

        – The Relative as local expressions of the Primordial Awareness. Orbits of “self interest”. Subject to the process of evolution.

        Some questions:

        – What does “REQUIRED” mean in this context? I think of it more as the nature of it All.

        – What does “the process of evolution” really mean? In the relative sense of things, it must be cyclical. On one hand, towards individual comprehension of Entirety as an abstraction — religion, philosophy, science etc.. On the other, towards resolution of individual awareness into the undivided Awareness — enlightenment, direct experience of non-separate identity.

        An inconclusive conclusion:

        – In the absolute sense, evolution does not exist. (Singularity as Absolute Infinitude is changeless, timeless, formless….), The individual part has never been separate from the whole. The seeming of it to the contrary, is an effect. (Astonishingly taken completely for granted. An effect of innate perfection?)

        – In the relative sense, our only seemingly “mysterious capacity for will”, picks and chooses. More or less informed by it’s current understanding. Big picture and small.

      • Yes, I hear you….. the best analogue I can conceive in this moment is that of “the cell” (in relation to the “human experience”) and “it’s micro-evolution” – a matter of bringing greater awareness and/or structure to the “macro” (or, “it’s entirety”) IE – us.

        I wonder if you had a chance to read my exchange with “nearlynormalfred” (below), as it regards the “feedback loop” I mention?

        It seems in this sense you and I agree; where I may have inadvertently misconstrued “the mechanism” … or “purpose.” That said, the word“purpose” does seem inadequate here, as it can hardly be ascribed to “entirety,” that which is fully formed, determined, infinite, and complete.

        For reference, my discussion with “nearlynormalfred” was one focused on “point of view,” in relation to “wave function” (measured in particle physics) and how this effects (human) perception. I have included the link for you here…. would love to get your thoughts ….


  11. Pingback: The Winding Path – 074 | In the service of Truth.

    • @Nearly Normal Fred

      That is a great piece. Most of which I would not argue. I am aware the implications “interference patterns” measured in particle science have on “perception” …. and …. yes, physics (the scientific process) is capable of proving (believed) “constants,” which therefore can be used to “imply” a “reality” exists, given routinely occurring outcomes & reactions; which would seem irrefutable despite “point of view.”

      However, so far as we can prove, a “point of view” is required to acknowledge (any of) this. In other words, the two cannot be separated with “true” certainty.

      While physics seems to suggest a “truth” exists at the foundation of (each of) our determined (individual) paradigms (or “points of view”) which is the same – even if not all paradigms and/or their persons choose to see it, or are able to understand it – our “point of view” is what dissects and “redirects” the method by which each of us see the world; a biased (and “relative”) reflection of the universe, cast by our own “identity.”

      Furthermore, if man is simply the result of quantum entanglement, action/reaction, and atomic evolution, then it would seem “his” place in the evolution of life (at least as it regards Earth) is a misstep – as we evolved one step away from nature, to recognize our “self,” and so had to find a reason why “self” exists (and all that that implies – science, religion, psychiatry, or whatever). In fact, the world around man does seem to act impartial to this; its roles and behavior just a process; action/reaction, predator and prey, seen or unseen – a perfect ecosystem, if not for the existence of man to question it.

      Therefore, the “quantum unity” (assuming we understand it) can be thought of as “reality.” And in this case, man’s reasoning or “point of view” just a “relative anomaly.”

      But what can be said for sure about the “reaction” which is each person’s “point of view?” – a quantum process all the same, even if “relative.” If this “quantum unity” creates (a) “conscious reflection” of it’s “self” as “relative perspective” (which the human experience certainly is), then is not “quantum unity” questioning its own “reality?” – after all the quantum process created the conscious being which now attempts to (re)define it.

      That’s right,…. the universe looking back at itself…. and all that.

      As such, could the computer exist without having evolved thru the consciousness of a human being? Mankind has reflected back on “the reality” and “chosen” to gather the particles and reshape them. He then built a language which could operate that system – metals, silicon, and carbon fibers. It sits on your desk “evolved,” just like man. And yet, a “conscious creation” (the imperative term here of course being “chosen”).

      In this sense a loop exists, where reality, relativity, and consciousness, define each other; a relationship which may have further implications than at this point science is able to perceive – one which may even end up being defined as “transcendental” … who knows?

      “The Matrix” comparison obviously comes to mind.

      If so, going back to statements made in my originating article, the particle processes around us (and their apparent truths) may themselves be the result of (a type of) “consciousness,” and how can we say what lies beyond the “observable universe,” and forces science has only so far measured?

      ….. what we have “so far measured”….

      To say mankind understands the true size of our universe (big or small), as it is observed, and especially “extra dimensionally,” is obviously false. And, our “relative” role to play in all this could be more relevant than we like to think, given the “size” we instinctively apply to the “scale” of the universe (as we see it).

      Hell, maybe Douglas Adams had it right … maybe the mice are running things lol!?


      Either way, the universe may not be so big at all. It might even be a “relative perspective” which helped make it….. and my reply a “Dualistic language game FTW” fer sher 😉

      • Yes that was a fun read. But I’m not claiming to have totally grasped every nuance in it, or in your comment. What jumps to my mind though is the similarity of Adi Da Samraj’s (aka. Bubba Free John, et al.) statements, and the Advaita Vedantan’s assertion that the only Brahman is real.

        Since I tend to be a little scared of the former’s personality, I’m more likely to read other exponents of the latter (Advaita). Reading of this sort, being mainly about confirmation or inspiration. Of those teachers who use Advaita Vedanta as a template, I like Ramana Maharshi for his technique of direct “inquiry” into the Self, and Vivekananda for his wonderful articulation.

        On the homefront, I’m becoming more inclined to extend my working model of “Reality” to encompass the paradox of the relative. So when you remark that, …

        “However, so far as we can prove, a ‘point of view’ is required to acknowledge (any of) this. In other words, the two cannot be separated with ‘true’ certainty.”

        …,I might also point out, that since a “point of view” (even if only just One) exists, all speculation about a universe without it, is a further abstraction. Something extra.

        Awareness comes with the package.

        I get a kick out of your final summary point … just because.

        troymo – “Either way, the universe may not be so big at all. It might even be a ‘relative perspective’ which helped make it….. and my reply a ‘Dualistic language game FTW :)’ ”

        In terms of the absolute, undivided and formless; size hasn’t been invented yet. But we show up, and can’t fit it all in our heads. Win-Win.

      • Yes, my choice to describe the universe in terms of “size” here is a taunt, since most view it according to its “obvious form,” …. something which is apart from us, measured by telescopes, …. “out there,” and utterly MASSIVE. Suggesting it is “small” therefore immediately invites a paradox, about what “size” really means … if anything at all, since “size” must be a function of something else IE – relative.

        Thus questioning people’s sense of the world “as it appears,” in this way, is an attempt to open their mind toward a “sense of infinity” – something not big, nor small, .. fully defined, and yet undefined…. it just “IS.” Or, as you say … “the entirety.”

        I like to say “always, in all ways.”

        I don’t believe most people grasp this, or (ever) even think about it … let alone, mathematically,… and what it means, …. for something to draw between all points simultaneously. “Points” … don’t even exist. Therefore, time does not exist. “Everything,” (the universe and all it is made of) must equal “one.”

        And so to your statement, “size hasn’t been invented yet”..… I would add, “it never will be.” “Size” is something “experienced,” a product of “consciousness.” The universe itself is not “relative,” it is the “conscious experience” which is.

        Nevertheless, why this is and what it means …. I am, so far, too naïve to tell.

      • Beautiful.

        So nice to sit back and listen for a change. I feel like I’ve been overworking my stuff a bit lately and need a break.

        I’ll try to spend some time looking through your blog. There is quality here. Especially a respect for the infinite.

        My strongest epiphany so far is the occasional flash on how the sheer utterness of nothing, results in all this. Perfect. Can’t be otherwise.


      • Well, thank you…. I must make more time for your blog as well. You have helped me (re)consider many things already.

        Never was “nothing” though… right? I think on this we agree.

        “Point of view” (or, “collapsing the wave”) is a binary alternative to the “wave function” – the wave function as it is exhibited thru electromagnetism, existing as a constant, or a probability state, …. “a potential.”

        Consciousness therefore (experiencing the electromagnetic state thru “point of view”) by localizing “it” (or, looking upon/and measuring particles, and forcing them into “position”) is much like a switch in (any) circuit – it is a binary instruction.

        ON, OFF, ON, OFF

        Is it “on,” or is it “off?” …. Only the “relative” viewpoint can tell. And, in this sense, consciousness is “required” (referenced in my comment above),…. if the universe is to “matter” at all (or as you say, to be anything other than an “abstraction”).

        The human (relative) experience therefore seems, somehow, “necessary” for this to occur, and hence, a “reality, relativity, consciousness” feedback loop exists.

        WE ARE, changing. WE ARE changing “the reality.” It occurs, and we react. It exists and we change it, somehow, and often,… while it changes is us. IT IS “us” … WE ARE “it.” It is not as it is (so far as we can measure) without “us.” IT IS “experienced,” …. And it is “us” who experience “it.”

        “IT,” “US,” …. EEeeegAT…. YES,….somehow… “one, in the same.”

      • —-
        “Never was “nothing” though… right? I think on this we agree.”

        Not sure how important the distinction is but I reserve room in my paradigm for what the Buddhists refer to as “Śūnyatā” or emptiness. My understanding of the entirety as ultimately undivided requires the paradox.

        What we call real and unreal is semantics. Or, a matter of our current state of understanding.

        I do know, that in order to cultivate an experience of the absolute, one does not amplify the personal. At least in a manner that leads away from the goal. i.e. Seamless integration with Singularity. (That place where “nothing” reigns, since there is no other to relate to.)

        Knowledge of which, is absolute, and therefor not different than that which knows. etc.

        ” ‘Point of view’ (or, ‘collapsing the wave’) is a binary alternative to the ‘wave function’ – the wave function as it is exhibited thru electromagnetism, existing as a constant, or a probability state, …. ‘a potential.’ ”

        Wave phenomena is interesting but I am very unschooled in science. I have been in‎intrigued recently by periodicity. Having stumbled onto what turned out to be known as “Pisano Periodicity” which becomes very suggestive when you increment through a set of numbers in any radix for the seed. (i.e. 0, 7,7, 14….) The periods and sub-periods line up wonderfully at least to my feeble mind. Since the Fibonacci stuff shows up a lot in nature and such, I get a kick out of the hidden structure. Like bones. This is as deep as it gets with me and math.

        “Consciousness therefore (experiencing the electromagnetic state thru ‘point of view’) by localizing ‘it’ (or, looking upon/and measuring particles, and forcing them into ‘position’) is much like a switch in (any) circuit – it is a binary instruction.

        ON, OFF, ON, OFF Is it ‘on,’ or is it ‘off?’ …. Only the ‘relative’ viewpoint can tell.”

        Hmm…I am tempted to suggest that the prototype of this “point of view” phenomena is the first emergent characteristic of the primordial infinitude. I usually get in trouble saying things like this. But, if it makes sense, then the subsequent points of view are clones. Sharing one nature. Not really different. Brahman/Atman etc.

        “On” and “Off” are relative as is any “point of view”. So, the question, what is Self?

        “And, in this sense, consciousness is ‘required’ (referenced in my comment above) if the universe is to ‘matter’ at all (or as you say, to be anything other than an ‘abstraction’).”

        As with “Self”; is consciousness the same as “point of view”? Again, what are the rishis, saints, roshis, and yogis pointing to? I see (possibly) where you are going with this. But the terms sabija (with seed) and nirbija (without seed) when applied to Samadhi indicate something intangible but real.

        At this point I would only be able to say I “believe in” or “intuit” this distinction.

        “The human (relative) experience therefore seems, somehow, ‘necessary’ for this to occur, and hence, a ‘reality, relativity, consciousness’ feedback loop exists.”

        Yes “exists” (the “Sat) of Sat-Chit-Ananda”, though “human” is an inadequate term for sentience.

        “WE ARE, changing. WE ARE changing ‘the reality.’ It occurs, and we react. It exists and we change it, somehow, and often,… while it changes is us. IT IS ‘us’ … WE ARE ‘it.’ It is not as it is (so far as we can measure) without ‘us.’ IT IS ‘experienced,’ …. And it is ‘us’ who experience ‘it.’

        ‘IT, ‘US,’ …. EEeeegAT…. YES,….somehow… ‘one, in the same.’ ”

        Yes. (mostly).

        Next question is what really drives evolution? Do we spin in orbits or go straight on? Yogis suggest that it is attachment which keeps us from knowing ourselves as we really are.

        Experience and Experiencer; Not different. This is Singularity.

      • yes “attachments” /facepalm, something I’ve accepted…. that I can not live without…. at least not now, in this form, … “my form” is “dependent” on something, … for over 43yrs… and these “attachments” (it seems) will never change.

  12. Pingback: The Winding Path – 121 | In the service of Truth.

  13. The recognition (i.e. mindfulness) of attachment and it’s effect is the practice. Change isn’t up to us personally. (i.e. changing ourself) Our bodies and mind, like clouds in windswept sky.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s