I'm no hyper-rationalist type. The most important part of life is subjective and experiential, not how logical one can be. To the extent that science discounts this in favor of repeatable experiments, it's wayward, imo. Our ultimate and only frame of reference is subjective. If science can't capture it, that's a limitation of science, not a diss on subjective experience. And the world is a very mystical place, and consciousness very spiritual. It's just that defaulting to formal doctrines of religions isn't spiritual at all, but closer to anti-spiritual.
The path is the path is the path. An independent path. That's different from obedience. Gnosticism rocks. But formalized religion is a corruption of it, an ending of it.

I've never heard anybody say "We can't have a system of medicine without ultimate and perfect knowledge from an omniscient authority," or "we can't have a system of cosmology without ultimate and perfect knowledge from a perfect supernatural authority," or "we can't have a system of mathematics without perfect knowledge and authority from an omniscient supernatural being," etc.

When we get to morality, in order to smuggle god in, it becomes: "You have no foundation for morality without god, therefore god exists. You can have no system of morality without god."

They are all works in progress. No special pleading because it gets fuzzy and complicated. It's religious-speak to make this exception for morality systems. It's not reality based, as usual with religion.

"Personification of the source of what is and what is happening = god." -- Sadhguru

Thousands of times over, such gods are created by man. Embodied by this, embodied by that, embodied by a thousand different things. "All the same," says Confucius. Check your premises.

"Miracle claims are used to dupe people into religions. By miracle I don't mean this. I mean wondrous and mysterious." -- Sadhguru

Westerners are determined to continue to be duped by these Indian spirituality scammers.

I listened to his debate with cognitive scientist Steven Pinker and fully expected him to be embarrassed. He didn't get embarrassed. He made good points, including the very astute characterization of religion in the quotes listed above. Of course you leapt immediately to I'm a follower of his or some BS.

Argue with the points he made, or you are double ad hominem (against me and him).

1. Miracle claims are used to dupe gullible people into religions across the centuries, including today.
2. The personification of an unknown source into a "god being" that will kill if you don't believe in it is a sick religious formulation.

Such profound criticisms. Now go ahead and lay out his alternative moral prescription..

I really don't know or care. I suspect it is something like go within, connect with true self and source, and don't listen to people who fancy themselves god messengers.

You don’t know? Then why are you appealing to him like he’s some moral authority you muppet?

I quoted the guy to discuss the quote. That has nothing to do with appealing to him as an authority, fool. It means simply he has a point. Of course you would make that mistake with your fundamentalist, "I'm the one telling you about god" mindset. You can't quite fathom discussing ideas without going authoritarian and presuming others are doing the same.

Tell me again, what is it that qualifies you to be revealing god's nature, and how are you different than all the other countless revealers of the various claimed gods? Because so far it seems like it is pretty much just a presumed, ipso facto thing and "Why would I need to provide anything like that?" You owe it to anyone who wants to know you are reliable as a source given all the impostors.

You actually believe you are capable of discerning the truth on your own? You are the arrogant one.

The spirit of truth is the only one who can provide validation. I am a servant. Still, I have already been validated at the highest level and speak the truth about myself.