Are you insane if you talk to invisible people?

[ilikebiggbuttz]

Should those who talk to invisible people such as God
be admitted to a mental ward? Is this enough to constitute
a threat to himself or others? Or should we be forced to wait until.
they do something violent first?

[Thermopylae]

No need to wait.

But, 'insane' might be a bit harsh for their circumstances, more like, misled. But ultimately, I think it depends on if you get an 'answer'.

[xexon]

Some people have a wider field of perception than others. They may indeed see or hear things that are beyond what you yourself can perceive. Some have more than 5 senses.

On the other hand, some types of mental illness can cause illusions which appear real to them. You can't lock someone up for talking to the air or a wall. Only when there is a danger of self injury or injury to others, does it become solid enough for a court imposed evaluation.

Everybody talks to themselves at some point, its not mental illness as much as it is boredom. The mind needs stimulation, otherwise, it attempts to create it's own.



x

[ranger]

Should those who talk to invisible people such as God
be admitted to a mental ward? Is this enough to constitute
a threat to himself or others? Or should we be forced to wait until.
they do something violent first?I talk to myself all the time. I am the onlyone that never argues with me. I also talk to God and listen and watch for his answers.

Trying to take me into custody for these things would have the same results as trying to take my land or my children. You would probably not fair well

[Djj1973]

Only if you answer back.

[Chelle]

I talk to myself.. I'm the only one who listens to me. ;)

To answer your question....... who knows?

I'm certainly not one to judge someone's sanity or lack of. That's what psychiatrists are for.

Chelle

[jamesrage]

Should those who talk to invisible people such as God
be admitted to a mental ward? Is this enough to constitute
a threat to himself or others? Or should we be forced to wait until.
they do something violent first?




Another athiest trying to bring down religion.You believe what you want and I believe what I want.

I see to many flaws in evolution for me to believe it ,for example

how did birds evolve any hard evidence?

Find a missing link yet?

What about snakes?

what about bats?

How and why did the first life forms evolve without genitic information for anything else?

How did single cell organisms evolve to multiple cell organisms?

I also find it hard to believe in the big bang theory.
Where did this speck of dust that exploded and gave birth to the universe come from?What was before the big bang?where there several other big bangs with several other universes being created and destoyed before this universe?

[JustinH]

Another athiest trying to bring down religion.You believe what you want and I believe what I want.

You give him a lot of credit :D.

I see to many flaws in evolution for me to believe it ,for example

how did birds evolve any hard evidence?

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/

Find a missing link yet?

Nope, but then again there are MILLIONS of species we haven't found yet.

What about snakes?

http://www.nature.com/nsu/000127/000127-8.html

what about bats?

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701775/session1.html

How and why did the first life forms evolve without genitic information for anything else?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0401_0401_shapeoflife1.html

How did single cell organisms evolve to multiple cell organisms?

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989524449.Ev.r.html

I also find it hard to believe in the big bang theory.
Where did this speck of dust that exploded and gave birth to the universe come from?What was before the big bang?where there several other big bangs with several other universes being created and destoyed before this universe?

Big bang is a toughy, happened millions of years ago so we can't really "know" what happened, nor can we know the circumstances it happened in.

However, I'm more then willing for you to provide physical evidence, from a credible unbiased source that God exists :).

[DMann]

I know. And I'm saying it. There is no God...and .... Yes, you're nuts if you think he's talking to you...whether your name is George Bush or Usama Bin Laden

[jamesrage]

SO the answer is no.So you can't answer with hard facts That shows from point A to point Z without skipping.I all seen for years is point D or a point K when it comes to having hard evidence for evolution never a A-Z facts only theories.Theories are called theories and not facts because they can not be proven with hard evidence.A few measly experiments don't mean squat except to maybe speculate an idea.So the thoery I choose to accept is creation.

Intersting links Although most of that stuff I have seen in Nova or national geograghic specials or read in biology books.

[DMann]

it must suck when evolution is too hard to figure out

[Craig]

James, read the second to last post on this page:

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9458&page=3&pp=15

[Duo_Maxwell]

depends. If it's the dialetic, no, if it's anything else, yes.

[JustinH]

SO the answer is no.So you can't answer with hard facts That shows from point A to point Z without skipping.

No offense, but you can't show any hard facts of the existance of god PERIOD. No skipping neccesary... you just say "god" and when I post several links from reputable source on the issue, you ignore it and say "but your evidence isn't perfect"... once again YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

I all seen for years is point D or a point K when it comes to having hard evidence for evolution never a A-Z facts only theories.Theories are called theories and not facts because they can not be proven with hard evidence.A few measly experiments don't mean squat except to maybe speculate an idea.So the thoery I choose to accept is creation.

God is a theory, because he can't be proven with hard evidence. One measily book "don't mean squat" except rampid speculation and consistant hypocracy. So I accept to choose evolution, even with our theories you have A LOT of evidence to support it... with your theory, you have a book.

Intersting links Although most of that stuff I have seen in Nova or national geograghic specials or read in biology books.

Then why'd you ask?

[ranger]

Big bang is a toughy, happened millions of years ago so we can't really "know" what happened, nor can we know the circumstances it happened in.

However, I'm more then willing for you to provide physical evidence, from a credible unbiased source that God exists :).You place your faith in the superstition called "The Big Bang Theory." I place mine in the "Omnipotent God Theory." We both have our faiths!

[DMann]

god is not a theory. it's a myth. there's a difference.

[ranger]

god is not a theory. it's a myth. there's a difference.
Time, space and matter all created themselves spontaneously is also a myth. Science had to wait until the 20th century to even know time, space and matter had a beginning. Prior to that science believed time, space and matter always existed. Moses wrote 4000 years ahead of science "KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." So Moses knew time, space and matter all began at the same time. Some myth?

[DMann]

there is more, in terms of physics and mathematics to lean towards the big bang theory then the "magical guy in the sky" created everything theory. it's just common sense.

[ranger]

there is more, in terms of physics and mathematics to lean towards the big bang theory then the "magical guy in the sky" created everything theory. it's just common sense.Care to elaborate? How can 3 separate physical things simultaneously and spontaneously create themselves out of nothing?

[JustinH]

Time, space and matter all created themselves spontaneously is also a myth. Science had to wait until the 20th century to even know time, space and matter had a beginning. Prior to that science believed time, space and matter always existed. Moses wrote 4000 years ahead of science "KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." So Moses knew time, space and matter all began at the same time. Some myth?

Of course that's under the assumption that you believe Moses actually existed... neither the Big Bang or God are myths or facts, they are only theories. And short of having a time machine, they will always remain as such. Although, there is far more physical evidence of evolution and the Evolutionary Theory, it can't be proven. There is NO evidence of God, and it can never be proven, unless he comes down for a visit.

[DMann]

god is a myth. the big bang is a theory.

[JustinH]

I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid that your point of view Dmann is just as ignorant and naive as "believers" that refuse to even listen to an alternate point of view.

[DMann]

how so?

[DMann]

how is god a theory? how is the big bang a myth? do you know the meaning of "myth" and "theory"?

[ranger]

Of course that's under the assumption that you believe Moses actually existed... neither the Big Bang or God are myths or facts, they are only theories. And short of having a time machine, they will always remain as such. Although, there is far more physical evidence of evolution and the Evolutionary Theory, it can't be proven. There is NO evidence of God, and it can never be proven, unless he comes down for a visit.Let’s assume Moses did not write Genesis. Someone did, and according to the data from the "Dead Sea Scrolls" it was prior to 100 AD. So someone wrote "in the beginning (time began) God created the heavens (space) and the earth" (matter) at least 1900 years before science figured out that the 3 were created at some point. That author claimed God told him and was very accurate.

Can you show me any law of science that can account for the "Big Bang"?

I can think of only 2 explanations for the instantaneous creation of time, space and matter from nothing. 1. Nothing was able to create 3 very important something’s from nothing (not very logical). 2. A being that pre-existed time, space and matter created them (that being is who we call God). IMO logic dictates number 2.

[DMann]

Someone also wrote The Wizard of Oz. What does that prove?

[ranger]

Someone also wrote The Wizard of Oz. What does that prove?
The fact that someone wrote the Wizard of Oz proves nothing. Care to provide the math and science that makes the "Big Bang" more logical than a pre-existing being. Can you offer anything other than 20th century theory. I cannot find anything anywhere that backs up the "Big Bang" with logic or fact.

I have an ancient manuscript that claims God did it. If you examine that manuscript with the same standard used with all old texts you would have to conclude that the document is accurate.

My history book trumps your 20th century magic.

[DMann]

Care to provide the math and science that makes the "Big Bang" more logical than a pre-existing being.

First of all, you use the language, "more logical" as if belief in (the existence )of God is logical.
Second, you'd have to go read some Stephan Hawkings to get the math. I haven't boned up on my quantum phsysics lately.
You should read "The Universe in a Nutshell' for a layman's guide to answer some of those questions.
There's not enough space here to educate you on the theory of relativity and Strings...etc....then take you all the way up to present day science. And even if I wrote out the math...give me a break...would you understand it? I know I wouldn't.

[ranger]

Firsat of all, you use the language, "more logical" as if the existence of God is logical. Second, you'd have to go read some Stephan Hawkings to get the math. I haven't boned up on my quantum phsysics lately.
You should read "The Universe in a Nutshell' for a layman's guide to answer some of those questions.
There's not enough space here to educate you on the theory of relativity and Strings...etc.The theory of a pre-existing being creating space, time and matter is far more logical than the theory that nothing existed prior to the creation of space, time and matter but somehow this nothing created space, time and matter by some sort of magic.

You don't want to look at the facts. Nothing cannot create something. It is impossible. It can not be found in science anywhere but the voo doo "Big Bang"! Beings creating things is normal in our experience.

[DMann]

there was no time? time just appeared? Time is a creation of man. in places where there is no clocks, people don't relate to time. There is no time. Of course, there really is. But, the perception of it isn't there.

let's get this straight. i was originally arguing that God is a myth and the big bang is a theory. you know that right? so, now i'm being asked to prove the big bang is real...which I never said. What I have said is God isn't real and that the belief in a God is illogical. Can i prove he isn't real? NO. Can you prove he is? NO. so we can't really argue over that because there is no answer.
By the way, I'm a fair-skinned blue eyed Irishman...so I don't believe my ancestors come from Africa or apes either.

[cpwill]

There is NO evidence of God, and it can never be proven, unless he comes down for a visit.

ah, and what if He did?;)

[DMann]

what if bats flew out of my butt singing the theme song from "the Mary Tyler Moore show"?

[Craig]

I can think of only 2 explanations for the instantaneous creation of time, space and matter from nothing. 1. Nothing was able to create 3 very important something’s from nothing (not very logical). 2. A being that pre-existed time, space and matter created them (that being is who we call God). IMO logic dictates number 2.

This is a false dichotomy for two reasons: first, if the universe is caused, it could be the result of any number of ultimate divine realities, including one that we are not even truly aware of, and secondly, it is possible for universes to always have existed, going through cyclical processes of Bang and Crunch, (or whatever other end of the universe scenario you want to go with), and thus is causeless.

[DMann]

people can't conceive of no beginning and no end.

[Craig]

people can't conceive of no beginning and no end.

If this is true, then people also cannot conceive of God.

[DMann]

it is possible for universes to always have existed, going through cyclical processes of Bang and Crunch, (or whatever other end of the universe scenario you want to go with), and thus is causeless.


you said it...

[cpwill]

what if bats flew out of my butt singing the theme song from "the Mary Tyler Moore show"?

then i certainly hope you got a video tape, cause man, that's worth serious cash.

people can't conceive of no beginning and no end.


If this is true, then people also cannot conceive of God.

not naturally, no; that is correct.

[DMann]

serious cash would rock. i could use some of that.

[cpwill]

well next time it happens, make sure that you've got a video camera and a very good friend...

[DMann]

I guess i need to go out tonite. it's 2 am in vegas....the party is just getting started. see you guys tommorow....i'm going to Treasures and drop some bills in a few girls panties

[Anvils Hammer]

hey i never thought of that before!
i just drooped my belief in the big bang theory as unproveable.
i now believe that the universe has existed for al time and will continue to exist for all time.
it has exactly the same credibility as belief in a supranatural being that has always been there and always will.
it doesnt require me to proove anything
and it doesnt require the exisance of god for anything!

can the religious folks please answer the following-
is my theory of the univerese as valid as yours? i think it is
do your agree that my theory completly removes the NEED for a god to have existed to explain how the universe got here?

and for everyone here-
why cant everyone believe my theory? as it doesnt require evidence of either gods existance or a big bang, and is nice and easy to understand, and cannot possible start arguments.

the universe has always been here, and always will be.

[cpwill]

actually, i've been thinking along those lines (well, toying with the idea) for a while now; no, it doesn't in the slightest interfere with my faith in God. why would it.

do i think that it is as legitimate a "theory of the universe" as God? no.
why? because i've met God, i've spoken with and witnessed Him. i've not witnessed so much as one big bang or "big crunch, let alone an endless loop.

[Anvils Hammer]

isnt god himself and endless loop?

but thats not what i wanted to say..
i just found this interesting little site
http://www.judeministries.org/god/cosmological.htm

i quote--
"The cosmological argument for God is also based upon experience and is very similar to the teleological argument. The world (or universe) exists. Science has demonstrated that something cannot come from nothing. There must be an original cause to the existence of the world. Since every effect must have a cause, the world has a cause."

this seems to be double standards of logic
the universe MUST have a cause becuase everything has a cause
but God doesnt need a cause, so why should the universe require one
and if the universe doesnt require a cause, the argument falls apart
alternativly, God had a cause, what was his cause.

is the explanation for this sommthing like "god transends time, and we will never really understand him, so its ok to leave huge gaps in the laws of logic"??
or is there an explanation for this argument

and it is worth trying to convince me as i have excepted my arguments ot be wrogn in the past and if you destory all my arguments ill have to believe :)

[cpwill]

isnt god himself and endless loop?

actually, cs lewis once made that analogy as well:)

and it is worth trying to convince me as i have excepted my arguments ot be wrogn in the past and if you destory all my arguments ill have to believe :)

lol, no, certainly not. rare indeed is the person who can be "logicked" into believing, it has to be a personal thing.

i come here mostly to sharpen my own wit.

my main goal vis a vie yourself and others is to pose to you an intellectual yet faithful christianity; i think folks like oral roberts and jerry falwell get all the TV play, and can give christianity a bad rap.

and perhaps that itself is being missionary-ic. St. Augustine once said "Spread the Gospel whereever possible. Use words when necessary."; i'd like to think that perhaps my actions may one day cause someone be willing to at least look into this "Christ" thing :shrug: or perhaps that's too prideful.

anywho, it's all very complicated at 6.am; please don't judge me by ramblings:D
lol
have a good one, anvil

-cpwill

[DMann]

Science has demonstrated that something cannot come from nothing. There must be an original cause to the existence of the world. Since every effect must have a cause, the world has a cause."


that wasn't written by a scientist

[DMann]

also...throw human logic out the window....cause I know for a fact some concepts are too big for the average man

[cpwill]

trudat.

[ranger]

hey i never thought of that before!
i just drooped my belief in the big bang theory as unproveable.
i now believe that the universe has existed for al time and will continue to exist for all time.
it has exactly the same credibility as belief in a supranatural being that has always been there and always will.
it doesnt require me to proove anything
and it doesnt require the exisance of god for anything!You now abandon the current science in favor of the discredited scientific theory that time, space, and matter have always existed. Do you also abandon the theory that the universe is expanding? Logic would dictate that if the universe is expanding then had to have a beginning. Run the video of the expansion of the universe in reverse and you will find it has a point were it did not exist.

can the religious folks please answer the following-
is my theory of the univerese as valid as yours? i think it is
do your agree that my theory completly removes the NEED for a god to have existed to explain how the universe got here?Since the scientific community has already abandoned your theory it lacks substantial validity.

and for everyone here-
why cant everyone believe my theory? as it doesnt require evidence of either gods existance or a big bang, and is nice and easy to understand, and cannot possible start arguments.Because science disagrees with you. But keep thinking.

the universe has always been here, and always will be. "The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery." http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

[swag]

I talk to myself all the time, I think of it as a verbal journal. Just recounting the days events, talking about problems...stuff like that. Now, I do not spend 5 hours a day either ;)

[Anvils Hammer]

ranger, i know science disagrees with me
but does it really matter how the universe got here? im fairly sure it doesnt, and theres far better things for mankind to think about.
science can only offer theorys.
my theory is good to believe becuase it is one that everyone, not just atheists or creationists etc etc can believe in.
the big bang makes the most sense, but assuming for the moment at least that the universe has always been here is both easy to do AND is totally conflict free, as it eliminates a whole swath of religious/philosphical argument that is an utter waste of time.
science may well disagree with me, but science used to think the earth was flat and the sun went round the earth, the big bang is as unproovable as any other theory, and WAY more complex than mine.

bty, have you heard the theory that the universe stops expanding, then slowly falls back to a central point under the pull of gravity and becomes super dense in a signle spot before exploding into a new universe,
thus, using that idea, its easy to say that a universe of sum kind has always existed.
and doesnt overload the human mind, i just get confused when i think about things outside our atmosphere so i stick to the most simple theory, for example, all the theorys about time really confuse me. so rahter than waste preciouse moments of my finite life wondering about it, i just assume time is a constant, dispite the fact that science has prooved otherwise, then i can think about more important things like solving world problems.

[Texsand]

Wait how did the creation or the beginning of the universe get into the topic of whether or not one is insane if god talks to you.

I'd say only if you believe that somehow makes your take on things more important than the next human being.

[TampaWRX]

SO the answer is no.So you can't answer with hard facts That shows from point A to point Z without skipping.I all seen for years is point D or a point K when it comes to having hard evidence for evolution never a A-Z facts only theories.Theories are called theories and not facts because they can not be proven with hard evidence.A few measly experiments don't mean squat except to maybe speculate an idea.So the thoery I choose to accept is creation.

Intersting links Although most of that stuff I have seen in Nova or national geograghic specials or read in biology books.
So then you are saying that a theory is something which cannot be proven with hard facts, which is to equate Creationism with Big Bang Theory, which is to admit that the Bible is at best a theory. I am not a Big Bang believer, as I am not convinced the universe must absolutely have an origin. It simply could be and always have been, simple as that. I can live with that. But living your entire life, praying to unseen entities and hoping that they are listening, according to a theory in and of itself seems a bit presumptuous and even overly optimistic to me.

[TampaWRX]

If I began talking to inanimate objects, things I can see and feel, would I be deemed insane? A little strange, perhaps, but probably not insane. So why does talking to invisible beings not make you a little strange? It is all biased perception. We are taught one act is OK because of context, while the other is not. It's a thing humans due in almost all of their social endeavors. It's part of what makes us so diverse, I suppose. I prefer talking to sentient beings that respond to my vocalizations...maybe that makes me crazy. I'll admit that I am rarely sure on that one. ;)

[xexon]

I once knew a gentleman who regularly cussed things around him. If he was hammering a nail, and it bent, he would give it a sound verbal thrashing. He never paid attention to the hammer that hit it, or the person who swung it.

Sometimes, we talk to things without realizing that we're doing it for our own benefit somehow.



x

[Seth928]

Only if god tells you to light things on fire.

[Anvils Hammer]

Only if god tells you to light things on fire.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DMann]

i guess it's solved then. the answer to the original post question is , "YES"

[Patriot]

Should those who talk to invisible people such as God
be admitted to a mental ward? Is this enough to constitute
a threat to himself or others? Or should we be forced to wait until.
they do something violent first?

You mean like speaking on the phone with people you can't see? Or writing posts to people you can't see? Being invisible doesn't mean they are not there.

[DMann]

You mean like speaking on the phone with people you can't see? Or writing posts to people you can't see? Being invisible doesn't mean they are not there.

clearly, that's not what was meant. that argument isn't very good frankly.

[TheGreyGhost]

Should those who talk to invisible people such as God
be admitted to a mental ward? Is this enough to constitute
a threat to himself or others? Or should we be forced to wait until.
they do something violent first?

That would involve billions of people- Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. -they all pray to an "Invisible" person.

2 Corinthians 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

[MikeD4o7]

and perhaps that itself is being missionary-ic. St. Augustine once said "Spread the Gospel whereever possible. Use words when necessary."; i'd like to think that perhaps my actions may one day cause someone be willing to at least look into this "Christ" thing or perhaps that's too prideful.


I hear ya... I feel the same way about myself with secular humanism / atheism.

[Democritus]

I talk to myself all the time. I am the only one that never argues with me.

That's funny, I argue with myself all the time... But then, I am insane, so maybe I'm a bad example.

[Patriot]

If I began talking to inanimate objects, things I can see and feel, would I be deemed insane? A little strange, perhaps, but probably not insane. So why does talking to invisible beings not make you a little strange? It is all biased perception. We are taught one act is OK because of context, while the other is not. It's a thing humans due in almost all of their social endeavors. It's part of what makes us so diverse, I suppose. I prefer talking to sentient beings that respond to my vocalizations...maybe that makes me crazy. I'll admit that I am rarely sure on that one. ;)

Inanimate objects don't talk back or answer your questions.

God does, which is why I pray. I've heard the voice of God many times, and witnessed answers to prayers. God is a sentient being.

[DMann]

I've heard the voice of God many times,


what he say!!!!what he say!!!!!

[cpwill]

well, which time?

[Patriot]

what he say!!!!what he say!!!!!

"DMann, repent!" ;)

[Craig]

That would involve billions of people- Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. -they all pray to an "Invisible" person.

In regards to Hindus, it depends upon which particular belief system the worshipper follows. Certain Hindus believe that the Saguna Brahman is the true nature of the ultimate divine reality, and as it is the personable, manifest form of Brahmen, one could analagously describe it as "praying to an "invisible person". However, followers of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta school of metaphysics assert that only the Nirguna Brahman, or unmanifest impersonal Brahman, is ultimately real. In this case, they do not pray to an invisible person, since the Nirguna Brahman lacks any traits that could be defined as personable.

So what is the nature of the Nirguna Brahman, according to the Advaita Vedanta school? In truth, it is ineffable. Probably the best way to describe it is "neti neti", which roughly translates into "not this, not that". Sankara's belief system is said to be unqualifyingly non-dual (and also lacking multiplicity), which means that the nature of Brahman is such that it is pure simplicity. However, even this description of it is distorted, because our understanding of "simplicity" necessarily depends upon a conception of "complexity", and this involves a duality, which the Nirguna Brahman is completely devoid of according to Sankara. So really, any human attempt to describe it will inevitably fail, though some descriptions are closer to the nature of the Nirguna Brahman than others.

[DRMIZER]

If I began talking to inanimate objects, things I can see and feel, would I be deemed insane? A little strange, perhaps, but probably not insane. So why does talking to invisible beings not make you a little strange? It is all biased perception. We are taught one act is OK because of context, while the other is not. It's a thing humans due in almost all of their social endeavors. It's part of what makes us so diverse, I suppose. I prefer talking to sentient beings that respond to my vocalizations...maybe that makes me crazy. I'll admit that I am rarely sure on that one. ;) I think the ancients beat you to talking to "things". Mankind used to believe their gods were numerous and were in images. We've come to believe that wasn't too good so, it's better to converse with something that can't be either seen or heard by others. . . .no arguments there.

And yes, psychologists refer to this as Schizophrenia which is characterized by positive and negative symptoms. Symptoms include thought disturbance, perception disorders such as hallucinations, delusions and grandiosity. ouch :devil:

To describe the difference between delusions and hallucinations: Delusions are false beliefs that are deeply entrenched and clearly not based in reality and are not consistent with cultural believes or the persons' level of intelligence and life experiences. Persons cling to these believes even after the believes are shown to be false.

Hallucinations can be auditory, olfactory, visual, or by touch. Hallucinations are false perceptions or unreal apparitions. They do not correspond to the stimuli present and have no basis in reality. You have to remember that what is an hallucination in one culture, is not in another.

[MikeD4o7]

In regards to Hindus, it depends upon which particular belief system the worshipper follows. Certain Hindus believe that the Saguna Brahman is the true nature of the ultimate divine reality, and as it is the personable, manifest form of Brahmen, one could analagously describe it as "praying to an "invisible person". However, followers of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta school of metaphysics assert that only the Nirguna Brahman, or unmanifest impersonal Brahman, is ultimately real. In this case, they do not pray to an invisible person, since the Nirguna Brahman lacks any traits that could be defined as personable.

So what is the nature of the Nirguna Brahman, according to the Advaita Vedanta school? In truth, it is ineffable. Probably the best way to describe it is "neti neti", which roughly translates into "not this, not that". Sankara's belief system is said to be unqualifyingly non-dual (and also lacking multiplicity), which means that the nature of Brahman is such that it is pure simplicity. However, even this description of it is distorted, because our understanding of "simplicity" necessarily depends upon a conception of "complexity", and this involves a duality, which the Nirguna Brahman is completely devoid of according to Sankara. So really, any human attempt to describe it will inevitably fail, though some descriptions are closer to the nature of the Nirguna Brahman than others.


Wouldn't it be most accurately described by just calling it "one-ness", or something along those lines?

[Craig]

Wouldn't it be most accurately described by just calling it "one-ness", or something along those lines?

Not necessarily. You see, the concept of "oneness" actually depends upon duality in order to be intelligible to human beings. The concept of "oneness" is such that it requires an understanding of "non-oneness" (or "non-unity", if you will), for us to be able to understand it. In trying to describe Brahman as "oneness" we are using a term that depends upon a duplicity to be intelligable, and because Brahman lacks duplicity or multiplicity, using a term that depends upon duplicity to describe Brahman distorts it.

As I said, Brahman cannot really be described by humans. So while "oneness" is a pretty good description of Brahman, it still falls short because of its necessary duplicity. For that reason, I suggest that describing all the things that Brahman is not is the most accurate description that we can give.