thormas

Hey, I like 'Experience' better, thanks for the correction. Apologies, it must have been the 'intense pressure' to have to select 2 books, from so many, so you wouldn't be overwhelmed :+} And this guy is leaving a great impression. It is an involved read, compared to some others, but well worth it. Theologians and religious thinkers believe there is God and Reality is real! So, indeed they discuss Reality and they do give their insights into Reality. You should pick up on this in your readings. I, and most all human being who have ever lived, do not accept that reality is an illusion, so I don't seek out books on the topic. I already have interests and a long reading list. Your wag is not well read but is trying to be so relevant! Plus, I didn't say God is completely undetectable or that God is beyond comprehension (but that is a topic for the future). I agree that God is not a person: 'a' would suggest god is merely another continent being among others and 'person' seems to be too limiting...and contingent (again). Invisible, like Sue Storm kind of invisible - where there is mass but it can't be seen but indeed has an impact? Interesting! As for #5 in both lists, too cute by far. Hey, did you write that review of Hart? It immediately mentions he does not try to provide 'evidence' for God. Yet another one fails to understand! Am I correct, that given the wag's comments, the 'review' of Hart, and that (most?) theologians don't believe reality is an illusion, that you're no longer interested in the books?

The understanding of faith I gave is a truer, deeper understanding of the relationship between revelation and faith (the former traditionally understood as information from God and the latter blind, non-questioning acceptance). So, I believe the older use of the word (which you buy into) is wrong in all human relationships: both in the context of God and man and in, for example, marriage. This total misunderstanding of the word 'faith' (as blind acceptance) is apparent in your example. In my understanding a person of faith (as I previously explained), in their own 'giving of self' to Love, would help the woman to leave the abusive husband. Theology, as I am surprised you don't know, is the 'study' of God. Never said it couldn't be studied - just said it is not or should not be approached as a thing or an object, among other objects, not even a Supreme Object. There is no armor against life. How absurd! The Christian or the truly religious person does not hide themselves in armor, seeking a false protection; they 'study,' seek understanding, respond to Life and.........live, thereby trying to give life (as in the example of the abused woman) to others. Again the 2 great commandments: one is in the other.

"Reality" is indeed a topic of these authors, perception possibly (as I don't read these authors to determine whether or not reality is illusion since I take it as a given) but you will get a sense of what is believed and perceived. And, just to be nice, two recommendations: Hart's 'The Existence of God' and/or Macquarie's 'In Search of Deity, An Essay in Dialectical Theism.' It might not be necessary (or of interest) to read the latter's entire book but if interested, I can suggest specific chapters.

It is my opinion or belief and I am fine with that. You seem to not accept what is my, as you say, opinion. The agnostic requires some supporting evidence, the person of faith, not only doesn't - but doesn't think any is or ever will be possible. Evidence pertains to things, objects that can be studied, belief pertains to the Subject to be encountered and faith pertains to the encounter. The person of faith requires no armor.

Great, so you're saying two Huxleys agree with me. A good day! Again, your definition of faith. Faith is the 'giving of self' in response to the self-revealing (self-giving) of God/Being. In other words, one come to 'believe' God IS and has certain beliefs about God (for example that God is Love - knew you'd like that one) and then the faith decision (to give oneself; to respond or not). Given your comments on Trump in another thread, it could be said that even if Trump believes 'God Is' (perhaps questionable), one wonders (seriously wonders, actually doubts) he makes the leap of faith, makes the decision for faith to give himself over in response to God. In other words, that he gives himself to Love; that he 'is' love or 'becomes' love! The idea of faith is captured in the 2 great commandments: if one 'loves' God (1st commandment), then, faith, the giving of self or response to God is giving (your)self, in love, to your neighbor (2nd commandment). Or to reverse it: whatever is done to the least (neighbor and thus the 2nd commandment), is done to God (1st commandment). Loving, the giving of self to the other IS the giving of self to God. God is not an object, not a thing, not a being to be worshipped; God Is be Lived. God Is to be done - and in the doing, I am.

You're fully capable of reading and reviewing yourself and I would not think to deprive you of the discovery. So I begin by offering: Origin, Gregory of Nyssa, John Hick, Gregory Baum, John Macquarrie, selected offerings by Spong, Gabriel Moran and David Bentley Hart. Enjoy!

And I could provide an even longer list of theologians, ancient to contemporary authors and thinkers, some of whom I have referenced before. Yet there is no definitive 'evidence,' no conclusive proof, so you, by self identification, remain the agnostic and others, if they choose, not so much. Thank god for free choice :+} The use of lower or upper case is yours and, once again, you seek to impose your way on all. For others, the word god refers to the gods (be it Roman, Greek, other theistic religions and also angels, demons and various god-men. And there are still others, who simply prefer God over god when they talk of God. Choice! I and some others apply the term god or gods to contingent beings, whereas "God" refers to that which sustains all in being or what some refer to as Being or even Ground of Being. But as Mystery (or as some theologians put it, not an object among others to be defined but a Subject to be encountered), God is not a proper name.

Yet this too is opinion or believe. Before my mind was, there were others minds that were and there will be more and different minds in the future. The world is - even when those minds are/were not. If the world is the embodiment of objects perceived by the senses and through them perceived by the mind - there is that which is perceived. While it is useless to argue, it is at times enlightening - other times not so much.

Interesting that there is not a 'whack load' about illusion - thank you for making my case and you have also further qualified that, even for you, it is about 'much'.....not all. I, also, have no need of the concept of God and once again, you mistakenly seek 'evidence.' Further, I don't believe in any gods, simply what some people refer to as the Ground of Being (although it is not a term I favor): "God" is not a proper name.

Thank god, Aldous agrees with me: I said "A true agnostic would have to straddle because they do not know: recognizing there is not enough evidence" and he said, "a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." So, as there is no definitive proof either way on illusion and if one self identifies as an agnostic, one must straddle the real fence that they think is illusory. His comments also speak to the issue of faith: the man of faith, "follow(s) reason as far as it will take" and makes the decision, at some point, to make the 'leap of faith.' Such a person does "not pretend that his conclusions are certain" - because, as has been said, he lives by faith, not the certainty of proof. Where Huxley and I disagree is where you and I disagree: he assumes and looks for scientific grounds, evidence, proof of everything. I have said consistently, the subject of belief is not subject to the same rules as the objects of scientific study. Plainly, it appears, you don't think or read much about faith and are unaware of the nuances that are out there.

Not meant as an argument, just an assertion of fact. As has been stated before, you always insist on 'evidence' (as you do yet again above) whereas others, myself included, when talking about the meaning of life, whether it is an illusion, if there is a God and similar subjects do not believe there is 'evidence' one way or the other. There is no 'proof' to be had. It is a question of belief. Yours is an opinion or belief that you have come to for certain reasons - there is no proof - otherwise many, many, many more people would accept your assertions. Not only is that not the case, it never will/can be. As for the agnostic stance, you seem to come down on a particular side. You always go to no God, no meaning and all is illusion. A true agnostic would have to straddle because they do not know: recognizing there is not enough evidence to base any belief on. There is no sufficient evidence to take the agnostic anywhere: they do not know. Whereas the believer, believes there is sufficient 'reason' to jump one way or the other. As for my reasons, we have been down that path, it is not your cup of tea and I'm fine with that. However, the statement that, "Even if something might be illusory it still could be a reflection of reality' is intriguing.

More to the point, as mentioned, we have been here before: this is your conclusion and you seem to choose not to (or be unable to?) accept that others disagree. You believe all is illusion, yet in your illusion you seek evidence that it is all an illusion, yet any 'evidence' would be illusory by definition. It is therefore, not evidence; it cannot be 'real' and dependable unless you allow all is real and then we might be able to rely on your evidence. Yet that would 'prove' all is not illusion.

Yet, as you said, that is your conclusion - not everybody's. Indeed a fun fact ..............

I repeat: a few tens of milliseconds to 2 seconds and for want of 2 seconds you think all is illusion? The people are correct!

I and, again, most others, simply don't believe it's true, there is no imagining involved. And sure history is relevant - unless you think it is an illusion. Plus, I 'm not talking the few, relatively speaking, who believe the earth is flat - I am talking about the few (relatively speaking) who think - yet don't live like - reality is an illusion? But we have been here before. You're still talking maybe few tens of milliseconds to 2 seconds: and for want of 2 seconds you think all is illusion?

There is no appeal to the divine or the alien in that statement??? It is a simple truth that most human beings over the course of forever do not accept that 'this' is an illusion. As for the now, we are in it always - and a few tens of milliseconds (really, tens of a millisecond) is still 'immediate' and therefore, now.

Not so sticky for most in the history of the world who simply don't buy that all is illusion. Also, even the pragmatic basis seems to not suggest illusion, merely a 'time lag' that is so small, it is hardly worth mentioning but is a fun fact.

Isn't what you describe, above about the flow of time, more about how the human 'captures' time - as opposed to the reality that, for example, dinosaurs, not part of human memory or any individuals succession of snapshots, do not exist in 'this' time but did in a past 'time?' This is a genuine question - again not something I dwell on much. So Max says we can portray either way - indicating we don't know, correct? So I go with 3 not 4 (especially since I don't understand the 4th dimension but it sounds sort of cool - except for the illusion stuff).

Time is definitely reality - and not illusion. By 'ongoing now' for a dog, even though I agree they learn, dream, remember (or again is it learned behavior and instinct) I don't think they are conscious of self (self reflective) - as are we, and it is this self-consciousness that allows us to 'straddle' past, present and future. But, again, this is not my expertise.........by a long shot.

Then again, some of us prefer the media and trust the DOJ and FBI as opposed to the stream of lies coming from the Trumpster.

I agree with this, my dog has his routines also. Even the cognitive continuity over time makes sense - yet that time seems like it all has to do with his 'ongoing' now. Just like his constant fixation: ball, ball, where's the ball, play ball, ball, ball, ball.........

I wonder: seems there has to be self-conscious mind and 'language' to not only make the differentiation but to experience it (i.e. the more). It seems animal experience is always the 'now,'

Agreed.

Well said and agreed. Then the question becomes what does this look like? Of course, we can never know but, in your speculation (if you have so speculated), 'in' the One and if we go with Spong's idea of 'entering' or sharing in a greater Consciousness (or a different idea that makes more sense to you), what do we say about the seeming present gulf among self-conscious beings, conscious beings and all else?

Agreed!