the image size is limited to screen width so you will have to download

blame deviantart for it's new trendy version of it's website (not me)

anyway chillax and enjoy my art gallery; my little rabbit hole.





---------------------------





beyond



B) KNOWLEDGE.



the key to understanding the God debate is to develop an understanding of what is meant by the key to understanding the God debate is to develop an understanding of what is meant by knowledge and by extension the questions of what is known, what can be known, what is still unknown and what is ultimately unknowable.

in any case neither a belief or a lack-of-belief are forms of knowledge.

it is the atheist position that a lack-of-proof justifies a lack-of-belief; i consider that reasonable. however it is the anti-theist position that a lack-of-proof justifies their assertion (i.e., claim to knowledge) of no God; i consider this as "the atheist delusion" that is perpetuated by the anti-theist

(or whatever they want to call themselves) since the search for proof (and by extension knowledge) has limitations.





in the God debate the knowledge one seeks (and by extension proof) is specific to what can be defined as "reality" and that



[side note] when i use the term "God" it is not necessarily exclusive to the abrahamic god of judaism/christianity/islam that falls far far short of the theologians/theists greatest conceivable "theory of God" that is the omni-God (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) that in itself exists(?) paradoxically in contrast to the problem of evil as discussed in the philosophy of religion; basically begging the question: if God can create a heaven that is so perfect then why bother creating Life?





in the philosophy of knowledge called epistemology , plato said that knowledge is a "justified true belief" (JTB). the key is that the belief had to be justified as true to be even considered as knowledge. however further questions arise especially in regards to justification, such as, what do we mean by justification? what forms of justification are available or even acceptable? how does one provide evidence to support each form of justification? and, to what level of certainty must something be justified? furthermore false knowledge (an oxymoron? possibly i should say provisional knowledge or a working hypothesis?).



this issue of JTB is complicated by the gettier problem which simply put shows that some forms of knowledge are at best just a "lucky guess", i.e., reaching the right conclusion (truth) with the wrong reasoning (justification). the gettier problem can be tweaked to define any sort of guess or speculation; in general to identify many forms ofknowledge (an oxymoron? possibly i should sayknowledge or ahypothesis?).

[side note] adam & eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good & evil ( genisis 2 ), but not the tree of knowledge. period. that's a huge difference. i'll leave that there for you to ponder on and/or debate in the forums. and if you haven't done so already then you may want to read the zen article on the discriminating mind that i linked below. and faith is not knowledge. nuff said.



one form of justification is through empiricism (science), however empirical claims made on behalf of a God can be testable and falsifiable, but i believe that a "theory of God" can get to a point of an untestable hypothesis and as such picking up a dinosaur bone and declaring science can take us beyond Death is not actually going beyond Death; it's just more evidence of Death. hence my diagram shows the unknowable Ultimate Reality beyond Death. i believe this is the toughest part of my diagram for anyone to accept and definitely the part that an anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) rejects outright so as to hold onto their cherished assertion of no God.



another form of justification is through rationalism that in itself is just one form of justification is through empiricism (science), however empirical claims made on behalf of a God can be testable and falsifiable, but i believe that a "theory of God" can get to a point of an untestable hypothesis and as such unfalsifiable . Death limits any further scientific investigations beyond our Physical Reality andthrough rationalism that in itself is just

another





form of philosophy but with logic equations that rely on some established axioms , therefore a belief without empirical evidence can still be justified by sound logical reasoning if one is prepared to accept that form of justification without empirical evidence as knowledge, but if not then we are all stuck with radical skepticism, an infinite regress , and a lot of trolls from all sides of the God debate making unreasonable demands for proof since the evidence they are truly seeking is beyond the realms of science as i noted above.

love of wisdom" not love of knowledge or love of logic though they are important [side note] philosophy literally means "" not love of knowledge or love of logic though they are important ingredients to achieve the right level of understanding that produces wisdom just like the eastern philosophies that are

and so i must also think about the God debate through rationalism / philosophy - not the special philosophy of theology, or theism / anti-theism, where God (or no God in the case of the anti-theist) is

a non-negotiable truth / un-questionable axiom

and as such all logic arguments are just more nuanced ways of circular reasoning because all truths must always and ultimately lead back to God (or no God





in the case of the anti-theist). for that special philosophy the circularity of the argument is proof of it's soundness. there is no greater waste of one's limited lifespan than a debate about the existence / non-existence of God between a theologian & a philosopher, or a theist & anti-theist; it is the physical manifestation of the irresistible force paradox ... but which wins? therefore from my own investigations and discussions, ultimately summarised as my diagram on the God debate, i must with all honestly state that i cannot answer that question on the existence or non-existence of God because i personally have not gone beyond Death to confirm it for myself ; hence the title of my diagram God is safe (for now) just don't overlook the "for now" part. and if pushed i must refuse to be part of either side on the God debate. however because of the problem of evil i cannot accept the current "theory of God" either

and therefore i will still engage in the God debate . i am certain my position will upset everyone on all sides of the God debate. spoiler alert: no one really wins the God debate. everyone loses. some of us even lose a bit of our humanity so as to hold on to our cherished assertions. and some of us lose a bit of our sanity. even the trolls lose as their hubris drives them deeper into their deluded perceptions of reality. and so i would rather keep my debate focused against ignorance and intolerance rather than against a God. it really is a case of mental gymnastics.



C) MEANING.



regardless of one's lack-of-belief, one thing we must all face is what of Self can exist beyond Death. even a belief in a God may not help.

just as

k yourself, what does it truly mean to be created?

one's "form" created. one's "self" created.

if a God is the only reality then only that God truly exists. all else just a mere creation subject to being uncreated. anyway beyond the circularity of a theology there are two main

philosophical positions to deal with this: (a) to deal with this: (a) existentialism or, (b) nihilism . most normally take the path of

existentialism, however for the deeply skeptical the path of nihilism haunts one's thoughts. philosophical atheist like Nietzsche have argued that some religions are a form of nihilism and some religions have argued in return that atheism is a form of nihilism. sigh! out of this endless cycle of accusations and counter accusations there developed the third less known philosophical position called absurdism born from the rejection of some of the principles of both existentialism and nihilism. this third

philosophical position of absurdism is the one i follow. those three philosophical positions are summarised in this table: of absurdism is the one i follow. those three philosophical positions are summarised in this table: can life have meaning?

is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe; our physical reality. because of science's ability to cut through our perceived reality

zen buddhist's article before you do:

philosophical position of absurdism

cognitive dissonance.

the following notes are updated often as i receive more criticism. last updated 29-May-2019.part two diagram is here: Belief: Red Pill Vs Blue Pill the idea for this venn diagram / flow chart / mind map (whatever) came to me from all the discussions (a polite word for arguments) i had engaged in the deviantART forum on Philosophy and Religion. summaries of my side of the discussions are in my dA Journals if your a curious kitten or like being driven in circles as i was. (sigh!). btw i follow buddha's teachings and he advises his followers not to focus on unanswerable questions such as if God exists or not. if a God (or gods) exist then it (or they) do so in one of the realms of samsara . however a buddhist focus should be on nirvana ; the liberation from samsara. but samsara does demand one's attention from time-to-time as exemplified in this cartoon carry a woman across a river from the illustrated book Zen Speaks: Shouts of Nothingness by Tsai Chih Chung. such a cute dakini i wonder if she will salsa (dance) with me (yes, i salsa. no joke).[side note] one way to understand the venn diagrams of justification and perceived reality is to consider the large circles as "". for example, skepticism is not a form of justification within itself. just being a naysayer never is. and empiricism is not a form of justification within itself. we truly cannot always trust our senses. however skepticism influenced empiricism to develop the scientific method as a discipline that leads to justification. hopefully this will give you the right understanding of the venn diagrams. although in the case of the venn diagram of perceived reality it gets more complicated. sigh! why Hegel knew there would be days like these.anyway the reasons why i entered into the God debate (contrary to buddha's advice not to) are several as follows: (a) i found it to be philosophically interesting and a chance for some mental gymnastics (b) i was upset when some atheist claimed that all religions without exception are fairy tales (c) i was upset when some fundamentalist believers claimed that their religion was the only true religion. then i noticed the God debate gave rise to unhealthy mental states on all sides of the debate (including my own). and i also found how easily lost one can become in the multiple threads of arguments and counter arguments.my diagram was attempt to try and grasp what was happening and not lose my focus. it was also an attempt to resolve one critical issue i had with some anti-theist positive atheist (sigh!) whatever they want to call themselves. it's hard to give them a definite term as some range from rejection of the concept of a God to haters of the concept of a God (note those haters are the minority. don't let the trolls fool you that haters are the majority). anyway for my notes i'll just refer to them in the broad sense as anti-theist. reality is a multitude of colours , shades and hues. so don't be too nitpicky on every single word i use but try and see what the words point to and i'll do my best to point the way or atleast in the general direction. "[side note] in all matters of investigation and/or debate the buddhist should consider the kalama sutta that is also known as buddha's charter of free inquiry. if science had a mission statement then i believe it would read like something similar to the kalama sutta. however science unfortunately does promote (indirectly) a type of radical skepticism which the kalama sutta does not support, or as the tibetan buddhist poem of luipa best expresses it "". in all matters of investigation and/or debate the the buddhist path must stay true to the middle way yes the title of my diagram does make my diagram seem overtly biased and i could of made it less bias by simply calling the diagram "' however my diagram was ultimately spurred into development as a response to some hardheaded anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) that have gonea lack-of-belief (i.e., the definition of atheism) and made the bold assertion that there is no God. they would not accept that their claim to knowledge of no God is also just a belief. so you can blame those hardheaded anti-theist, who in my opinion are just as annoying as fundamentalist believers, for the diagram's bias.reality comes in three flavours as follows.1. physical reality = the natural world the can be studied scientifically and proven via empirical evidence.2. perceived reality = how we humans interpret our world often without any empirical evidence (science) but rationalist justify via reason.3. ultimate reality = what lays beyond Death where science cannot take us (as yet) and therefore impossible to provide empirical evidence.[side note] in buddhism there is the concept on anatta (non-self) that is derived from the buddhist doctrine of impermanence (annica). this has inspired the zen koan of original face and is the basis of this cartoon enlightenment of the wave from the illustrated book Zen Speaks: Shouts of Nothingness by Tsai Chih Chung. it is interesting to imagine that the zen koan alluded to the wave-particle duality of nature long before quantum mechanics, but of course i am speculating (possibly due to hindsight bias) and taking a quantum leap off topic i love science but science is not about answering that question on life's meaning, though it does like occam's razor cut through a lot of speculation, philosophical fluff and religious dogma; our perceived reality.it creates in some humans a mental stress called cognitive dissonance - something to remember if you're a sensitive person that starts feeling that nausea that is the onset of an existential crisis that may lead to nihilism. so to any scientist that decides to philosophise and/or pass judgement on religions my advise is don't or at least read this the discriminating mind is like a hammer . at best the only thing science can truly contribute to the question on the meaning of life is to help doctors better determine when one is legally dead; no one wants to bury their loved ones alive.myis out of my own need to understand the Absurd in all it's aspects so as to help myself and eventually others through their own encounter with the Absurd. "from the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all." Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus . one does not actually combine absurdism with a belief in God or any other belief. but instead one encounters the Absurd on the path that one travels through life that may or may not lead to a belief in God or some other belief. its that encounter with the Absurd that brings on the existential crisis and presents one with the choice of either existentialism or nihilism as paths leading away from the Absurd. but before choosing a path one should understand that even nihilism is also a belief, just like existentialism, as it too tries to negate one of the terms of the Absurd (i.e., one's search for meaning versus a silent universe) thus also committing what Albert Camus called philosophical suicide. and optimistic nihilism ? well that is just an oxymoron meme that one could dress up with scientism or strip down to its more honest naked silliness it is my understanding that siddhārtha gautama (aka the buddha ) encountered the Absurd when he first left his palace to meet his subjects. he saw an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and an ascetic. that encounter was totally against how he had experienced life in the palace up to that point. that encounter suddenly propelled him into the mental state i linked above calledhow he set about to reconciled his encounter with the Absurd and reduced his cognitive dissonance is what eventually gave rise to what we now call buddhism. buddhist doctrine doesn't start with a creation story but with the four noble truths . i understand the first noble truth is in a way an acknowledgment of the Absurd. buddha offers what i believe a better way to deal with the Absurd than Albert Camus or any other of the existentialist, but that is not to say what they offer is wrong, just a different perspective and often helpful, maybe even the other side of the same coin. just be cautious about the creation of unreasonable personal truths WARNING - this section may disturb some. as i stated in my intro above i noticed the God debate gave rise to unhealthy mental states on all sides of the debate (including my own). such discussions concerning faith / death / hope as covered in this section are not easy nor readily welcomed.faith is a "special" type of sound logical reasoning where the "belief" has been eventually reduced to a non-negotiable truth / un-questionable axiom and as such all logic arguments are just more nuanced ways of circular reasoning because all truths must always and ultimately lead back to that "belief". for that "special" type of sound logical reasoning the circularity of the argument is proof of it's soundness .... sounds familiar?one must realise that "faith" is just a word. if the word "faith" has too much religious connotations then there are substitute words (synonyms) that sound more secular such as trust, confidence, conviction, optimism, expectations. so when others use that word "faith" then in one's own mind simply replace that word with a synonym so as to try and grasp what that word points to rather than get fixated on that word. for example a skydiver may have done everything reasonably possible to ensure a safe jump but ultimately when a skydiver jumps out of the aircraft he/she does so on faith / trust / confidence / conviction / optimism / expectations because there will always be some unknowns and some unpredictability. any skydivers that believes they are in absolute control of (or have absolute knowledge of) Nature are deluding themselves. reason and faith . however i do accept that faith can be an unreliable shortcut between truth and belief but regardless of that one still has to eventually face one's own death.



[side note] faith in buddhism is "only an initial trust in the buddha as a spiritual teacher and an initial acceptance of the buddha's teachings. by listening to the teachings and putting them into practice, a buddhist disciple can examine through direct experience whether they are true or not." introduction into the philosophy of buddhism part 1 // part 2 // part 3



ultimately one must eventually face death. complaining about how others choose to face death isn't going to help oneself. one may say to oneself that death is a natural part of life, or that death is inevitable, or there is nothing one can do about death. these are things that one tells oneself so as to ease any distress surrounding thoughts about death. but one may also be lulling oneself into a false sense of security. one may even say to oneself that the briefness of one's existence is not as much a concern as the experiences within that brief existence. but again one may be lulling oneself into a false sense of security.





some will argue that

in being brought face-to-face with death

it is fear that motivates one to adopt a religious view. however the same argument can be applied to simple day-to-day events like driving a car , or as the buddha understood

religions offer so much more such as community and support.

however i do acknowledge that some religions do have some questionable motives and conduct; but so do governments and business enterprises. in any case one should be realistic about one's fears. in buddhism any irrational fears would be considered as a result of one or more of the three poisons of the mind (such as aversion or ignorance that gives rise to anger ) that one should try to overcome so one can live in accordance with the noble eightfold path

you have read the zen article i linked above on the discriminating mind before you try and answer that

"from the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all." Albert Camus, The Myth of Sysyphus.

and if you haven't done so already then you may want to read the wiki article on cognitive dissonance that i linked above.





rationalism can go with any philosophical, ideological, political, scientific or religious position. even theist can be rational (sometimes). and so can a snake-oil salesman. we humans can rationalise anything. but if that ratioinality has any fallacies or biases then that is a different question alltogether. if one is doing an excercise in comparing and contrasting then skepticism would be a closer analogy to atheism. but even theist can be skeptical ... except about their own beliefs. we humans can be skeptical about anything. but if that skepticism has any fallacies or biases then that is a different question alltogether. a honest skeptic should doubt even his/her own skepticism. that is what it means to be honest with yourself. as with all things one must provide justification, otherwise either rationalism or skepticism is no better than a belief. "the entire method consists in the order and arrangement of the things to which the mind’s eye must turn so that we can discover some truth." René Descartes





in any case no arguments, tears, or rage, will make the unknowable knowable. that's just the way it is. and so, when facing Death i must declare with all honestly the i know that i know nothing" and embrace the Absurd. and the socratic paradox that "" and embrace the Absurd. and How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." i deal with any dukkha that arises from that acceptance of the Absurd by cultivating the mental state of equanimity which in buddhism is called upekkha . "." Niels Bohr

i'm not really interested in reaching nirvana (for now) same as i'm not really interested in knowing if God exists or not. i'm just interested in following the threads of logic, like any good philosopher, to see where they lead me, paradoxes and all. but mostly i'm interested in proving to

some hardheaded anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves) that their affirmation of no God is also just a belief. it's been a long journey but hopefully i have cracked that nut.

the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

Brandolini's law.





so who am i ? i am one awakened to the Absurd ~ Lazy Bloody Artist Magic.



--------------------------> and added note to skeptics of all flavours and on all side of the God debate your most common logical fallacy is ...... the fallacy fallacy so who am i ? i am one awakened to the Absurd ~ Lazy Bloody Artist Magic.--------------------------> The End

<--------------------------



F) END NOTES.







when analyzing my diagram you should consider Daniel Kahneman's system 1 & system 2 from his book Thinking, Fast and Slow : System 1 (fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypical, subconscious) in my diagram is knowledge gained via "common sense"; a unreliable shortcut between truth and belief. System 2 (slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious) in my diagram is knowledge gained via the "rationalised" path of philosophical inquiry; a better more reliable path between truth & belief that has an element of "reason".

[side note] i had intentionally excluded an image from my diagram. i had considered placing the venn diagram of perceived reality within an image of a human brain. however i felt that, due to the unhealthy mental states of some people that i had encountered on all sides of the God debate, that such an image may divert focus. cognitive science has too many fields of focus that although they are great at taking the human mind/brain apart they are woeful at putting it back together again in any way that provides meaning to existence.

as i said above,

at best the only thing science can truly contribute to the question on the meaning of life is to help doctors better determine when one is legally dead; no one wants to bury their loved ones alive...or be buried alive one self.





[side note]

btw if i had included the image of the brain as noted above then the two separate images of Evidence and Limit of Evidence would of made more sense as they are actually one image that brings together multiple concepts. to understand those concepts you will have to watch the youtube video i linked below on Plato's allegory of the cave and also read the wiki article i linked above on nirvana. furthermore, even though

"we are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. the word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly." Niels Bohr



the scientific method creates observable experiments with repeatable results, ultimatley it is the human's mind (our perceived reality) that attempts to explain those results.

[side note]

it was a tough decision to not include the image of the brain in my diagram but i have learnt the hard way how easily many of us lose focus (yes, myself included). only a very few of us can use the composition of our brains as an excuse for losing focus but for the rest of us there is no such excuse as we can and should learn to exercise our brains in the right way that brings mindfulness

w and again i remind you that this discussion on the mind/brain is taking us away from the intended focus of my diagram as only a specific aspect of mind and no aspect of brain is the focus of my diagram. for those that seek knowledge the brain is everything . for those that seek understanding the mind is everything . the mind is the yang to the brain's yin and that's where i'll leave it (for now). "

hen an ordinary man attains knowledge he is a sage; when a sage attains understanding he is an ordinary man" zen saying.



if you want to go all esoteric on my venn diagram then: Truth is the physical form Body, Philosophy is the mental form Mind, Belief is the spiritual form Soul, and Reality is the Perceived Reality brought about through balance (or conflict) between those three fundamental forms of Mind-Body-Soul to our sense of well-being. and that Perceived Reality can be almost anything human-centric, such as, religion, politics, culture, ethnic identity, social order/status, id/ego/super-ego, self, and even ethics & morals.







also i wonder how my venn diagram would relate to immanuel kant's three questions: what can i know? Truth ???, what ort i to do? Philosophy ???, what may i hope? Belief ??? - yer i'm a noob at philosophy so go easy on me, please. if you want to learn some philosophy in easy to absorb snack size youtube lessons then i recommend as a starting point the philosophy tube . and if you want to understand how to apply philosophy to your life then

i recommend t

and lastly as Ian Stewart (mathematician

) and Jack Cohen (scientist) put it in the science of discworld by

, we are the storytelling ape, pan

narrans, and our worldview (perceived reality) operates on narrativium and "







If you want others to be happy, practice compassion.

If you want to be happy, practice compassion.



Tenzin Gyatso - 14th Dalai Lama







G) FOOD FOR THOUGHT





The hidden meanings of yin and yang - John Bellaimey

just some short youtube videos as food for thought. enjoy.

it, to be awaken to the true nature of reality (which Albert Camus understood as the Absurd) is to understand that the human life span is onlythe rejection of a God is argued by some in conjunction to the rejection of a doctrine of an afterlife / resurrection / reincarnation / rebirth (whatever). such a rejection of a "theory of an afterlife" may be perceived as easy to justify by an atheist / anti-theist / skeptical materialist (whatever) but only if not examined too closely nor thought of too deeply. but to others such a rejection may seem like nihilism. if examined closely or thought of deeply then such a rejection of a "theory of an afterlife" may be perceived as the rejection of hope. one should understand that a "theory of an afterlife", just like the "theory of God", is also tied into the concept of a Self. atheism has no real response to death except to continually cast doubt on hope; it is ultimately just a form of skepticism.however i do accept that the "theory of an afterlife" does have some issues such as causing one to lose focus on the here and now much to the neglect of this world.as i stated in my intro above, my diagram was attempt to try and grasp what was happening and not lose my focus when engaged in the God debate against one specific claim made by an anti-theist (or whatever they want to call themselves). it was not about trying to resolve the entire "theory of God" altogether. and therefore the focus of my diagram can be summarised as follows:-so now i have one simple elegant philosophical equation for the God debate however this does not mean this debate is resolved but hopefully it gives this debate focus. within my diagram the Absurd is represented within the Taijitu where western philosophy finally catches up with eastern philosophy as a discipline for wisdom. i believe (though i'm not entirely certain) that the western philosophical equivalent to the yin-yang principle of the taijitu maybe (maybe) the epistemological theory of contrastivism . yep western philosophy just sucks out all the mysticism and leaves behind a raisin of facts.....but is that a bad thing or a good thing? hopefully. and the taijitu as a whole maybe (maybe) understood through the western philosophy of gestalt psychology in the God debate many of you have already come across the Absurd, misrepresented and caricatured by atheist/anti-theist as the flying spaghetti monster (FSM) or the invisible pink unicorn (IPU) and even russell's teapot . as amusing as those little absurdities are they actually work against a complete understanding of the Absurd, hence the religious may miss the point one is trying to make when invoking those little absurdities.atheism, just like religion, is a dead-end to philosophical inquiry into the Absurd as each takes some form of leap (that Albert Camus called philosophical suicide) into their individual and unique flavours of existentialism, denying any contact with the Absurd. the religious scream "there is a God" and the atheist / anti-theist screams back "there is no God", but I ask you seriously: which one will help you cope better with the fact that you will die? only the deluded laugh at Death. be honest with yourself. calvin and hobbes get existential Terry Pratchett (novelist))."Keep taking those blue pills and occasionally a red pill.Just don't overdose on either. And stay on the path.May HOPE be your guide if not your God.