Dear Tony,

«if we are absolutely the same as God then it is impossible to get any closer: we're already as close as we can possibly be»

However, this currently is not your experience: strive to make it your direct everyday experience rather than a mere cerebral theory.

«If God does not exist, your other favourite claim, then it is once again impossible to get any closer: there is nothing to get closer to.»

It is possible to remove the obstacles that give you the illusion of being separate from God.

«you arbitrarily dismiss bona fide religions»

For example?

«and annoy the irreligious by insisting that they are religious»

I do not insist that you are particularly religious, any more than others. While technically-speaking even the atoms in your body have a sort of a religion, this could perhaps be as weak and insignificant as the gravitational pull of a feather in a galaxy 10-billion light years away, not anything like a black-hole in the neighbour's yard where you are about to fall there before you managed to have enough fun.

So have fun for now, taste all the pleasures of this world - as well as the pains that follow. Once you are weary and had enough, then religion is there to help you find your way out, to wake up from this nightmare of yours, but till then you don't need to wake up any time soon unless you want to.

//However, this currently is not your experience//

Well, no. For one thing, there's the lack of noodly appendages.

//strive to make it your direct everyday experience rather than a mere cerebral theory.//

By making myself more noodly? How do I achieve that, Yuyutsu? Flinging myself into a black hole won't work: 'spaghettification' is just physics jargon for the effects of extreme gravitational fields on matter; it won't actually make me more noodly.

//It is possible to remove the obstacles that give you the illusion of being separate from God.//

Yes, if I abused the right hallucinogens I might well be able to imagine that I have noodly appendages and can fly. But drugs like that are bad for your mental health, and your mental health is important.

//While technically-speaking even the atoms in your body have a sort of a religion//

No they bloody don't.

//not anything like a black-hole in the neighbour's yard where you are about to fall there before you managed to have enough fun.//

There are no black holes in any of my neighbour's yards.

//So have fun for now, taste all the pleasures of this world - as well as the pains that follow.//

There are no pains that follow this world. Once you're dead, that's it. Enjoy it while you can.

Hi Toni,

As you say, " ... Once you're dead, that's it. Enjoy it while you can."

And what do you do in the meantime to make it a better place for others ? Many religious people, to their credit, focus on that inevitable aspect. But many seem to be far too self-absorbed to give it a thought.

Was it Schopenhauer who said that, if he could persuade a believer that there wasn't a heaven, that person would become an atheist in twenty minutes.

So whether there is or isn't a god or gods, we should all just get on with it, and do something useful.

Cheers,

Joe

Yuyutsu

<<<<<You are God. (this is not a claim because claims, according to the dictionaries, are always about things, whereas you are not a thing and God is not a thing)>>

<<you are not a thing>> is a claim. Assertion without proof.
<<God is not a thing>> is also a claim. Assertion without proof.

You cannot make these claims without knowing something of "humans" and "God". To assert what they are not, you must have some idea of what they are in order to exclude the quality of being a "thing".

If you claim you know they are not a "thing", you must demonstrate how you know. Tell me what evidence you have. How do you know these things? You don't.

Simply assertion is not enough

Dear Razor,

Let me know if you are unhappy with the dictionary definitions of 'claim'. Otherwise we shall continue to use the existing ones which state that claims can only be made about things.

When you state that "<<you are not a thing>> is a claim", you pre-assume that you are a thing.

However, you cannot locate yourself and you cannot point to anything that is you.

When you state that "<<God is not a thing>> is a claim", you pre-assume that God is a thing.

However, you cannot locate God and you cannot point to anything that is God. In fact, I think that we agree that He doesn't exist, so what is the argument about?

«You cannot make these claims without knowing something of "humans" and "God"»

Humans? How did they enter this discussion? Regardless, we do know quite a bit about them, so your out-of-the-blue condition is satisfied anyway.

As for God, I made no claims.

«To assert what they are not, you must have some idea of what they are in order to exclude the quality of being a "thing"»

First, humans are a thing, so lets get them out of the way.

Second, while having ideas regarding what something is could possibly help telling what it is not, this is not a necessary condition.

As for God, had He been a thing, then He would be limited, thus not God. Oops... why should we worship a thing, a mere limited object? In any case, don't you agree with me that no such thing called 'God' exists?

«If you claim you know they are not a "thing", you must demonstrate how you know.»

That you are not a thing does not depend on whether (and if so how) I know it.
If you are unsure what you are, then try locating yourself, try looking for things that are you - you will find that every attempt crumbles.

Yuyutsu

No, you are pretty much talking past all of my points by semantic evasions. If I cannot get you to even acknoweldge that you understand what I'm saying then there's no point.

<<<<When you state that "<<you are not a thing>> is a claim", you pre-assume that you are a thing.>>>>

No I dont. I make so such assumption. The burden is on you to justify the grand claim you're making. I dont even actually know what you mean. It's pretty clear you are distinguising between "You" and "humans" given your apparent failure to understand my point.

TO justify your claim you need to define "You", and explain why "you" is not a thing. And to do so you must provide some positive qualities about what "you" is. (This same point applies to your God assertions)

<<<<However, you cannot locate yourself and you cannot point to anything that is you.>>>

Woo woo. What do you mean? Where is your evidence for this claim? Have you been reading too much Deepak Chopra?

<<<<As for God, I made no claims.>>>>
You claimed God is not a thing!

<<<<As for God, had He been a thing, then He would be limited, thus not God. Oops... why should we worship a thing, a mere limited object?>>>>>

Right. Your opinion depends on a definition of God. You need to define God and explain what it means and what evidence you have that your explanation is true. It's also a puerile semantic evasion to say you are not talking about "things": thereby you have no obligation of proof. Otherwise you would clearly state what you are talking about beyond "things".

<<<<<In any case, don't you agree with me that no such thing called 'God' exists?>>>>>

You miss the point entirely. There's no evidence that a thing with a standard defintiion of God, a Creator deity, exists.

This does not mean that its a fact, beyond reproach, that no God exists - and expect everyone including billions of Christians and Muslims to agree with you