(...continued)

<<Then it still exists.>>

Your mind, that is. Fine, but your assertion was "I exist", not "my mind exists".

<<And if it doesn’t, then that doesn’t matter because existence is what I directly experience either way, and it’s reliable and consistent.>>

EXCELLENT! WONDERFUL!

So you also have or had direct experience(s), thereby you know yourself, independent of your mind.

Now since God cannot be described positively and no words can convey what God is anyway, you have selected the word "existence" to name your experience, which is good as any if it works for you (except that I would use it with a capital-E). If this name inspires you best on your religious path, than all that's left for me is to congratulate you for it.

<<I thought that’s what you meant; something that cannot be demonstrated.>>

But you just did!

Then it seems that there is no need to take this discussion any further.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<Here I suspect an axiomatic assertion that the mind is sometimes able to convey you the truth.>>

No, that can be demonstrated without circular reasoning, and the use of more fundamental assumptions.

<<The mind is ALWAYS a liar, because it interposes between you and the world...>>

This assumes that the mind necessarily distorts what it perceives. If that were the case, then no two people would be able to communicate unless they were experiencing the same lie, in which case, how could you even tell it was a lie?

<<I actually doubt, by Occam's razor, the existence of 'mind' as an entity separate from the brain.

Occam's Razor is about making as fewer assumptions as possible, not doubt. You are actually violating Occam's Razor here by making an assumption one way or the other.

<<...what those genes "want" is that you care for them and assist their competition, which is only possible if you are convinced that you are a body/mind, separate from others.>>

It's also possible if that's actually the case.

<<A condition for experiencing the truth is not to mind. So long as you carry the seeds of selfishness, considering yourself separate from others thus having competing interests, experiencing the truth is out of reach.>>

You need to demonstrate this. Nothing you said prior to this makes it a logical conclusion.

<<Glimpses only, of directly experiencing myself, then I verified my experiences against scripture and the accounts of others who had similar glimpses.>>

Doesn’t sound like a very reliable method. What’s an example of a similar account?

<<That's an axiom!>>

No, it can be demonstrated without resorting to circular reasoning, and the use of more fundamental assumptions.

<<An unnecessary one by Occam, if your aim is to be good.>>

No, it's unavoidable, I'm afraid. You cannot know what good is without knowing what is true first. How can you determine what is good in a world that appears completely random to you?

<<That would be uncharacteristic of me.>>

So suddenly we've forgotten about all those claims regarding what you supposedly know about religion?

Continued…

...Continued

<<A hidden assumption here that we are rational beings, perhaps? or that mental understanding is equivalent to knowing?>>

No, those can be demonstrated without resorting to circular reasoning, and the use of more fundamental assumptions.

It sounds like 'axiomatic assumptions' are the new 'game of epistemology'.

<<Fine, but your assertion was "I exist", not "my mind exists".>>

You’re assuming they're separate. Whether or not they're separate is something that may be determined later. 'I' can be all-encompassing.

<<So you also have or had direct experience(s), thereby you know yourself, independent of your mind.>>

To put it in other words, all I did was explain that (for example) it doesn’t matter if I’m a brain in a vat, because that’s not what I directly experience. The same goes for whether or not anything exists. But if you say so...

<<Now since God cannot be described positively and no words can convey what God is anyway…>>

How do you know this?

<<...you have selected the word "existence" to name your experience…>>

As I’m sure most would. How do you justify calling it “God”.

<<If this name inspires you best on your religious path, than all that's left for me is to congratulate you for it.>>

How is this religious path any different from any other self-help course? And if it’s not, why are you referring to it as a “religious path”? And if it’s just one method, then how do you justify the additional spiritual layer/claim?

<<But you just did [demonstrate coming closer to God]!>>

I demonstrated that I acknowledge that what I directly experience is ultimately all that matters. Whether or not coming closer to God is a valid concept, or whether or not one can come closer to that which does not exist is yet to be demonstrated.

<<Then it seems that there is no need to take this discussion any further.>>

So you’re conceding your denial of the burden of proof and claims regarding the definition of “religion”?

Didn’t think so.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, but I suspect we’ll be here for a good few months yet.

By the way, Yuyutsu, that was the equivocation fallacy again.

Demonstrate:
1. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
2. give a practical exhibition and explanation of (how a machine, skill, or craft works or is performed).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/demonstrate

This is what happens when you play semantical games. If you really were as enlightened as you make out, then you would not have to commit fallacy after fallacy to defend your views. Your continual fallacies and contradictions are not indicative of someone who has discovered, or is on any reliable pathway to discovering, the truth of anything. They are only indicative of someone who has invented their own version of reality and will go to any length to defend it.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<If that were the case, then no two people would be able to communicate unless they were experiencing the same lie, in which case, how could you even tell it was a lie?>>

If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each their own mind.

<<You cannot know what good is without knowing what is true first.>>

I wrote, "if your aim is to be good", not "if you want to know what is good".

<<So suddenly we've forgotten about all those claims regarding what you supposedly know about religion?>>

Where did I write, "I know that"?

While you may not like either statement, there's still a difference between:
1) "I know that my redeemer liveth"
and
2) "My redeemer liveth".

The first type of statement would be out of character for me because I don't consider what I know or don't know to be important.

<<No, those can be demonstrated without resorting to circular reasoning>>

You complicate things unnecessarily. Let me restate in plain English:
I neither act rationally (when wanting to earn money), nor is the fact that I UNDERSTAND that existence is unimportant amount to actually KNOWING it every moment of my life.

<<You’re assuming they're separate. Whether or not they're separate is something that may be determined later.>>

You are speaking of yourself as "they"?

<<it doesn’t matter if I’m a brain in a vat, because that’s not what I directly experience.>>

Finally! Finally your subjective experience carries some weight and not just brainy assumptions.

<<How do you know this?>>

Suppose I don't know, what business of yours is it? do you believe otherwise (that God can in fact be described positively)? Otherwise, why this time-wasting red herring?

<<How do you justify calling it “God”.>>

At the time of having a direct glimpse of myself, I know (I don't mean right now, now I only remember) that I have no limitations, that all is me, that there is nothing but myself. What other word fits better?

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<How is this religious path any different from any other self-help course?>>

It's the best among them (but don't expect any proof from me).

<<And if it’s just one method, then how do you justify the additional spiritual layer/claim?>>

The path is the same but the methods vary according to individual circumstances (but don't expect any proof from me).

<<I demonstrated that I acknowledge that what I directly experience is ultimately all that matters>>

That's wonderful then, and so true.

<<Whether or not coming closer to God is a valid concept, or whether or not one can come closer to that which does not exist is yet to be demonstrated.>>

If you wish to demonstrate the validity of concepts, then good luck. Similarly, if you wish to demonstrate anything, I leave those tasks to you.

<<So you’re conceding your denial of the burden of proof and claims regarding the definition of “religion”?>>

Regarding the definition of religion, I already made my point and I am not interested in proving to you that you behave like a pig.

Those handicapped people who have no direct experience, need to use their minds instead, but as you claimed that you have a direct experience which is in your own words "reliable and consistent" - then use it! Go ahead, you don't need to waste your time and mine on mind-stuff!