Easier to give you a readable reference:
*Indestructible Truth * by Reginald Ray pp 398-403
Okay. Everybody go out and find that book, read those 5 pages and we’ll meet back in here, what … say a week?
Easier for who, Teach?
If you can’t paraphrase the argument, you don’t understand it.
Since you don’t understand it, why on Earth should anyone listen to your opinions on this subject?
This debate/discussion seems to be another situation that could be resolved if the OP had read “The Official Atheist Rulebook”.
I lack belief in the existence of that book.
It’s in the same section as “The Official Lesbian Rulebook” and “The Official Guide to Being Gay”. You can trust it if it has “Official” in the title, because you can’t put stuff on a book cover if it isn’t true, right? 
Ok, ok, let us go this way.
(Bear in mind, I do find the question of the existence or non- existence of God, particularly relevant.)
We can only talk about the non-existence of God, because we can talk about the existence of God. What would it be like without that reference point?
We can only talk about the non-existence of Godzilla, because we can talk about the existence of Godzilla. What would it be like without the reference point?
Seems legit. :rolleyes:
Gibberish.
We can talk about God because we all have a concept of God. Without any concept of God ( I suppose that is what you mean by ‘reference point’) we would indeed not be able to talk about it. And your point would be…?
“Is a thought about a unicorn a real thought?”
My initial reply was to the Deist — “No primary cause”, more specifically no single, primary cause.
Nargajuna lived and taught at Nalanda University in India, 2nd century CE. He is the founder of the Madyamaka school of Buddhism. Not a school of philosophy as we know it, meaning following a line of reasoning to a conclusion but I contend a school devoted to explaining a direct experience. The principle element of the school is Shunyata or “Emptiness”, for our purpose meaning, there is no phenomena having a fixed, inherent existence.
- An example from the book, take a plant, we can superficially say the primary cause of the plant is a seed but if we look closer, there are multiple causes (seed, soil, sun, nutrients, etc.) If we take the seed, the same reasoning holds. In context, we have to examine the causes and conditions of each phenomenon and then reexamine each element, which leads to the understanding: the existence of all phenomena is dependent on multiple causes and conditions.
- If we examine a chair in the same way, we find that it is comprised of many components and attributes but there is no essence of chair, no chairness. We conventionally call it a chair based on its form and function, i.e. its relationship to everything else.
- There is another aspect to this. If we use a different object, and ask, what is an Orange? Again, we can break it into components of (taste, color, size, shape, etc.); what is taste? (Bitter, sweet, sour…) What is Bitter? What is Blue? The point being we can get to a place because of our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) that relies on the direct experience of that object, my asking, give an answer that has no reference point. (Not a red herring, but a Blue fin tuna).
How is this pertinent to the thread? I contend based on a direct (unconditional;)) experience, and our innate need to explain it, we create via poetic expression and personification, the ultimate explanation, God;
it is not, we exist because God exist, but God exist because we exist.
So, plants or seeds, chairs and oranges are imaginary?
Or, we can smell, sit on, or plant god in the ground?
Not sure I’m catching the connection here.
I think I read that in Jain’s Defense Weakly. It was one of those koan things. The superbeing created us in order that we would create it so that it could create us. ADD infinitum.
Fun with Sikh and Jain.
I’m with donnie darko on this. Replace “universe” with "human brain"and see whether it still makes sense, anthropomorphic principle notwithstanding.
Good acid
So, here then would be the question: so? Suppose the universe does have some arcane form of intelligence that flows across billions of lightyears and back, at the speed of light (since we are still not certain of a way that information can flow faster than that), what difference would it make? Can you suggest how we might be able to communicate with this universal mind* n a meaningful and useful way? Can you propose a manner in which this intelligence can effect actions, for I cannot believe that intelligence would be able to survive absent the ability to act. It is just ponderously difficult to conceive of how a universal intelligence could possibly matter.
*in the voice of Jim Morrison
It is easier to understand the conclusion than the argument:
Everything is interconnected and inter-related;
We know something by its relationship to everything else.
You’re spouting gibberish. Pretending nonsense is profound doesn’t make it an intelligent argument.
God is a story told by ignorant people. The story is just made up, so even if it is true, it’s true by complete accident.
That comparison doesn’t work at all. The brain is highly organized for the purpose of information processing. Not a collection of disorganized…stuff like the universe. Nor is the brain so large that lightspeed limits make it impossible to function as a unit, also unlike the universe.