Complex views of God

[Rav]

and of why there might be such a thing as a necessary being instead of simply nothing at all

When exploring this question, I think it's useful to remove the physical universe from the equation, otherwise we are still tempted to default back to invoking God as a solution to the question of it's existence and stop thinking (since the universe is incomprehensible enough already, and we want to resolve the problem). So imagine God before the universe was created. Imagine that there is nothing but an unphysical consciousness. An entity. A personality.

Why is it there?

No matter how much theists might insist that this isn't a valid question, it is. The concept of God is subject to the same fundamental question of existence that the universe itself is subject to. There's just no legitimate way around it.

(By the way Yazata, I'm not directing this at you. I was just using the quoted portion of your post as a springboard.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

What I see in this is that your personal experience and opinion trump the opinions of others who are nominally on the same path as yourself.

Are you saying ''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'' have NOT claimed to be the Supreme Being, belief or lack of aside?

All I'm saying is that I do not know for a fact that they do or do not exist.
Also, I am aware that there is no way to ascertain that knowledge without being told by the Supreme Being. So I have a choice. I either accept the possibility of a Supreme Being, or I don't.

Now, do you or anyone else has another way of knowing whether or not
a Supreme Being exists, which does not have to involve acceptance on some level?

This is a straight-foreward question.
Can you answer it?

In other words, if another devotee disagrees with you on some doctrinal or experiential matter, this does not have final power over your spiritual stance.

In short, you say you adhere to scriptures, accept them.
These scriptures are telling you to do X (in this case, formally joining that particular religious organization, with everything this entails, nowadays this can mean including sucking up to everyone who is above you in the hierarchy; because if you don't get the people who are in positions of authority to approve of you, you won't get intitiated, and if you don't get initated, you won't make progress).
You don't do X.
But you still claim you accept the scriptures.
This is what I find odd.

Signal, we've been back and forth with this, I've trie to explain to you what I think you are talking about. Thus far you have come back with what seems to be the same thing, as though it hasn't been addressed.
I have asked you to draw some conclusion, or give some definitions which we can mutually work with in a bid to keep the goal-posts in one place.
You have refused, and as such I can only conclude I have no idea what you are talking about (even though I understand the words).

You appear to be basically a ritvik.

If you mean I stick to the scripture, and the bona-fide spiritual master, as the spiritual authority, then yes.

That is a rather naive and inaccurate rendition of the philosopher's/academic's (" ") situation.
Perhaps Yazata and some others might agree with it, but I don't.

Then climb out of your shell and make some decisions.
Draw some conclusion so we can see where you stand.

All I see in this is that this is just one possible theory, competing with so many others out there - the Christian ones, the Muslims ones, Scientology, humanism, and so on.

Prove it.
From a scriptoral point of view.
Because the religions you mentioned are based on scripture, despite their differences.

jan.



Such an acceptance is indistinguishable from willed insanity.[/QUOTE]

 

[Yazata]

So imagine God before the universe was created. Imagine that there is nothing but an unphysical consciousness. An entity. A personality.

Why is it there?

No matter how much theists might insist that this isn't a valid question, it is. The concept of God is subject to the same fundamental question of existence that the universe itself is subject to. There's just no legitimate way around it.

Ruling the question out simply by definition, by the invocation of some philosophical magic word like 'necessary' or 'eternal', seems like an evasion to me.

As you've already pointed out, we could make the same kind of move regarding the natural universe and simply cut God out of the whole deal.

Even if we accept the theistic move, it does't really have any informative content. Calling something 'necessary' is really just shorthand for 'don't ask why'. It doesn't really explain anything, nor does it tell us how those who coined the definition could possibly know what they were talking about.

If there's a conceptual problem accounting for the being of being, then shoving being upstairs into some supposed 'supernatural' heaven and pronouncing it 'necessary' doesn't make the question go away, it just ignores it.

(By the way Yazata, I'm not directing this at you. I was just using the quoted portion of your post as a springboard.)

Feel free to direct it at me if you like. It's a good point and I agree wholeheartedly with you.

 

[wynn]

When exploring this question, I think it's useful to remove the physical universe from the equation, otherwise we are still tempted to default back to invoking God as a solution to the question of it's existence and stop thinking (since the universe is incomprehensible enough already, and we want to resolve the problem). So imagine God before the universe was created. Imagine that there is nothing but an unphysical consciousness. An entity. A personality.

Why is it there?

No matter how much theists might insist that this isn't a valid question, it is. The concept of God is subject to the same fundamental question of existence that the universe itself is subject to. There's just no legitimate way around it.

Here's an example of a different view:

ADI DA SAMRAJ: There is something very negative implicit in the religious consciousness of Western people. If you are a Westerner, "Is there a God?" seems to be the question you should be asking in order to become religious. But it is a completely absurd question. It has nothing whatever to do with Spiritual life. This question has to do with human beings, not with God. The question "Is there a God?" reflects a state in human beings for which they must become responsible. It is not itself a question that must be answered.
...
When the disciple approached a traditional Spiritual Master in the East, he or she was not trying to find out how to live better -- he or she was looking for liberation from the world. But the people who went to Jesus or Mohammed or Moses did not ask how to be liberated from the world. . . . They wanted to know what they should be doing . . . to enjoy a future that would be Blessed by God. That was their question. In the Orient, on the other hand, they did not ask that question. If they went looking for a Master, they wanted to know how the hell they could get out of here and bring an end to all this torment!

Is there (a) God? Does God exist? Why does God exist?
are questions that humans simply cannot answer, unless we default to presuming that God is a being lesser than ourselves.

 

[wynn]

Are you saying ''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'' have NOT claimed to be the Supreme Being, belief or lack of aside?

It is beyond me to answer this.

Now, do you or anyone else has another way of knowing whether or not
a Supreme Being exists, which does not have to involve acceptance on some level?

This is a straight-foreward question.
Can you answer it?

There is a difference between contrivance and acceptance.

To answer your question, would be contrivance.

You are applying popular Western epistemology to a philosophy that doesn't operate with such an epistemology.
This is what is going on!

If you mean I stick to the scripture, and the bona-fide spiritual master, as the spiritual authority, then yes.

You aren't sticking to the scripture.

How many times do scriptures say that one needs to take intiation?

Did you get initated in ISKCON? Are you a member of ISKCON?

SB 4.9.11: "Transcendental devotional service cannot be complete and cannot be relishable without the association of devotees. We have therefore established the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Krishna Consciousness Society and yet engage in Krishna consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible."

As far as I know, you are not a member.

And you are holding as authoritative a version of scripture that has been produced by an organization that you do not approve of.

Well ...

Then climb out of your shell and make some decisions.
Draw some conclusion so we can see where you stand.

Frankly, at this point, I think you either have many good arguments up your sleeve that you haven't used so far, or you are full of shit.

All I see in this is that this is just one possible theory, competing with so many others out there - the Christian ones, the Muslims ones, Scientology, humanism, and so on.

Prove it.
From a scriptoral point of view.
Because the religions you mentioned are based on scripture, despite their differences.

I should prove to you that my view is what it is??

 

[Rav]

Is there (a) God? Does God exist? Why does God exist?
are questions that humans simply cannot answer, unless we default to presuming that God is a being lesser than ourselves.

I'm not sure how what you quoted supports this assertion. It seems to be a comparison between the way spirituality has historically been approached in different parts of the world.

In any case, defining God as a being that is so great that it's existence need not be accounted for is essentially the same argument as before. Also, I don't need to be able to wrap my head around the infinite size of the universe in order to ask questions about how it came to be, do I? Once again I could just as easily argue that to question the origin of the universe is to presume that it is a lesser entity as compared to yourself (and thus it does not require a cause).

 

[wynn]

Ruling the question out simply by definition, by the invocation of some philosophical magic word like 'necessary' or 'eternal', seems like an evasion to me.

As you've already pointed out, we could make the same kind of move regarding the natural universe and simply cut God out of the whole deal.

Even if we accept the theistic move, it does't really have any informative content. Calling something 'necessary' is really just shorthand for 'don't ask why'. It doesn't really explain anything, nor does it tell us how those who coined the definition could possibly know what they were talking about.

If there's a conceptual problem accounting for the being of being, then shoving being upstairs into some supposed 'supernatural' heaven and pronouncing it 'necessary' doesn't make the question go away, it just ignores it.

I agree. But I think the problem around showing God's existence essentially emerges from the fact that the theist/atheist discussion is taking place between members of a theistic group and non-members of said group.

I think the emic-etic distinction applies here.

There are things about God that can be understood only emically, never etically.
And as long as we are not members of a theistic group, we won't understand.

What is a bit perplexing, though, is that theists often do not consider the emic-etic distinction, and instead maintain that everyone can (eventually) come to the same knowledge of God, and that the only factor is one's free will.

 

[wynn]

I'm not sure how what you quoted supports this assertion.

No, I added that myself.

It seems to be a comparison between the way spirituality has historically been approached in different parts of the world.

Obviously. And there are some characteristic differences. There are questions that Westerners will ask, but Easterners won't, and vice versa.
I find this to be very interesting.

In any case, defining God as a being that is so great that it's existence need not be accounted for is essentially the same argument as before.

Not "need not be accounted for" but "cannot be accounted for" by humans.

Also, I don't need to be able to wrap my head around the infinite size of the universe in order to ask questions about how it came to be, do I? Once again I could just as easily argue that to question the origin of the universe is to presume that it is a lesser entity as compared to yourself (and thus it does not require a cause).

Sure, we can ask all kinds of questions. Whether they have answers, whether they even can have answers, that is another matter.

This is why I find intercultural studies and accounts interesting, as people of different cultures have approached these problems differently.

 

[wynn]

Actually, I hold open the possibility that a theist (or anybody for that matter) might know something that I don't know. But whatever it is, they have to convince me that what they tell me is true.

I don't know any theist would care enough about others to do so.
They'll just blame it all on us.

But eventually, students progress to the PhD-level doctoral-research phase of their educations. Doctoral students are often embedded in university research groups working on a single, or a closely related set of fundamental scientific or scholarly questions. The professors don't already know what the answers are going to be, any more than the doctoral students and post-docs on the team. Everybody present is a researcher, an investigator.

That's how I look at the epistemological side of the religious quest as well. It isn't really a search for an authoritative professor, preacher, prophet, scripture or guru who is in a position to reveal the mysteries to us. It's more like the whole human race is a giant existential research group, composed of people whose human condition puts them on the same epistemological plane, that's found itself in this weird... reality... thing, and is trying to figure out what might explain it and what meaning it might possibly hold for us in our lives.

You know, it's dangerous to consider oneself a sotapanna if one actually isn't that ...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

It is beyond me to answer this.

Stop wasting time, you know what I mean.

There is a difference between contrivance and acceptance.

To answer your question, would be contrivance.

You are applying popular Western epistemology to a philosophy that doesn't operate with such an epistemology.
This is what is going on!

This is why I've come to the conclusion that conversing with you is a
pointless pursuit.
Develop a back-bone, and commit yourself to something.
Here is a perfect oppotunity.
Answer the question.

You aren't sticking to the scripture.

How many times do scriptures say that one needs to take intiation?

Did you get initated in ISKCON? Are you a member of ISKCON?

SB 4.9.11: "Transcendental devotional service cannot be complete and cannot be relishable without the association of devotees. We have therefore established the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Krishna Consciousness Society and yet engage in Krishna consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible."

As far as I know, you are not a member.

How does not being a member of ISKON make me not stick to scripture and the bona-fide spiritual master ''as spiritual authorities''?
Please answer that question?

And you are holding as authoritative a version of scripture that has been produced by an organization that you do not approve of.

By ''produce'' I take it you mean ''translated''?
Why do you hold that I don't approve of ISKON?

Frankly, at this point, I think you either have many good arguments up your sleeve that you haven't used so far, or you are full of shit.

Ouch!!

I should prove to you that my view is what it is??

At least your developing some bite in your responses.
Who knows?
One day you may come right out and answer a question.


jan.

 

[Rav]

Not "need not be accounted for" but "cannot be accounted for" by humans.

Sure, we can ask all kinds of questions. Whether they have answers, whether they even can have answers, that is another matter.

I'm going to formulate a deeper Pantheist view for the sake of discussion here. Note that every time I use the word "God" it is synonymous with nature or the universe.

The energy of God manifests dynamically. Sometimes it exists in the form of a highly uniform singularity and other times as a wondrous cosmic symphony. Whatever state of affairs may be in play at any particular time, God is most certainly always infinite.

Anything that can happen according to God's own nature does happen. Perhaps the most incredible of all possible happenings is the eventual and inevitable manifestation of God's energies as numerous self aware entities that have individually unique experiences. As God continues to manifest in ever changing ways (but always according to it's nature), more and more of these unique entities emerge until the cosmic symphony is equaled in presence by the cosmic choir. Consciousness, a feature of God, is everywhere.

God's energies continue to manifest in this manner for an unimaginable period of time until eventually, God rests. In the overview the fullness of God has been expressed, and thus it is now time for a new beginning. God's energies, returned once more to their highly uniform state, are ready to launch into the next cosmic symphony, and begin the expression once more.

The question of God's existence is of course a nonsensical one. God exists because God must; because the impossibility of nothingness yields a positive result. In this way, God is both infinite and eternal, and all quantity and quality is eternally and dynamically expressed. One can not question the truth of this without revealing a fundamental inadequacy of comprehension, since the logic pertaining to the necessity of God's existence can not be expressed in terms that are fully accessible to the individual human mind. We are but a tiny and brief manifestation of an infinite and eternal whole, and are therefore ill-equipped.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm going to formulate a deeper Pantheist view for the sake of discussion here. Note that every time I use the word "God" it is synonymous with nature or the universe.

The energy of God manifests dynamically. Sometimes it exists in the form of a highly uniform singularity and other times as a wondrous cosmic symphony. Whatever state of affairs may be in play at any particular time, God is most certainly always infinite.

Anything that can happen according to God's own nature does happen. Perhaps the most incredible of all possible happenings is the eventual and inevitable manifestation of God's energies as numerous self aware entities that have individually unique experiences. As God continues to manifest in ever changing ways (but always according to it's nature), more and more of these unique entities emerge until the cosmic symphony is equaled in presence by the cosmic choir. Consciousness, a feature of God, is everywhere.

God's energies continue to manifest in this manner for an unimaginable period of time until eventually, God rests. In the overview the fullness of God has been expressed, and thus it is now time for a new beginning. God's energies, returned once more to their highly uniform state, are ready to launch into the next cosmic symphony, and begin the expression once more.

The question of God's existence is of course a nonsensical one. God exists because God must; because the impossibility of nothingness yields a positive result. In this way, God is both infinite and eternal, and all quantity and quality is eternally and dynamically expressed. One can not question the truth of this without revealing a fundamental inadequacy of comprehension, since the logic pertaining to the necessity of God's existence can not be expressed in terms that are fully accessible to the individual human mind. We are but a tiny and brief manifestation of an infinite and eternal whole, and are therefore ill-equipped.

Why have you called this manifestation ''God''?

jan.

 

[Rav]

Why have you called this manifestation ''God''?

Because it's worthy.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because it's worthy.

So it's not God, only worthy.

jan.

 

[Rav]

So it's not God, only worthy.

The universe is God. There is nothing greater or more fundamental. That is the pantheist view, Jan.

 

[wynn]

Stop wasting time, you know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean.

Answer the question.

You simply want me to put myself into a box, put a label on me, so that then, it would be easier for you (and some others) to deal with me.

And my refusal to label myself like that, you call lack of backbone.

How does not being a member of ISKON make me not stick to scripture and the bona-fide spiritual master ''as spiritual authorities''?
Please answer that question?

Because those same scriptures that you say you are adhering to are telling you that nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON.
But you are quite consciously staying away from ISKCON.

By ''produce'' I take it you mean ''translated''?

Procured, collected, organized, translated, commented, edited, printed, published.
Without ISKCON, the scriptures (that you refer to) wouldn't be as you know them.
It only behooves to acknowledge the producer of one's resources.

Why do you hold that I don't approve of ISKON?

You aren't a member, nor in the process of actively pursuing to be one.

You are "aloof" from ISKCON, and as we know, "Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Krishna Consciousness Society and yet engage in Krishna consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible."

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I agree. But I think the problem around showing God's existence essentially emerges from the fact that the theist/atheist discussion is taking place between members of a theistic group and non-members of said group.

I think the emic-etic distinction applies here.

There are things about God that can be understood only emically, never etically.
And as long as we are not members of a theistic group, we won't understand.

What is a bit perplexing, though, is that theists often do not consider the emic-etic distinction, and instead maintain that everyone can (eventually) come to the same knowledge of God, and that the only factor is one's free will.

very interesting

 

[Jan Ardena]

The universe is God. There is nothing greater or more fundamental. That is the pantheist view, Jan.

Actually, it isn't;

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical....

...Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2]

The concept of God is merely seen as a way of describing the universe.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

No, I don't know what you mean.

Okay, seeing as you want to play silly beggars.
Do the the characters of ''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'', in the respective scriptures
claim that they are the God, The Supreme Being.
Yes or No.

You simply want me to put myself into a box, put a label on me, so that then, it would be easier for you (and some others) to deal with me.

In case you haven't noticed, you are being dealt with.
Like I said, you wrap yourself in a cocoon thinking that unless you commit
to something, you are somehow or other immuned.
Maybe that works in pure philosophical discourses where everybody is on the same page.

And my refusal to label myself like that, you call lack of backbone.

You're frightened of being dealt with by your own admission, so
my (colourful) description is justified.

Because those same scriptures that you say you are adhering to are telling you that nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON.
But you are quite consciously staying away from ISKCON.

You're not listening. How does it stop me from accepting them as ''spiritual authorities''?

Procured, collected, organized, translated, commented, edited, printed, published.
Without ISKCON, the scriptures (that you refer to) wouldn't be as you know them.
It only behooves to acknowledge the producer of one's resources.

Same as above.

You aren't a member, nor in the process of actively pursuing to be one.

You are "aloof" from ISKCON, and as we know, "Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Krishna Consciousness Society and yet engage in Krishna consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible."

Same as above.
Please try and understand the question.
Note the position from which the question is being asked.

Very funny.
Why didn't you complete the humour with some witty remark replacing the
name ''Jesus'' with ''Jebus''?
That would have sealed it.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Stop patronizing me, Ardena.

I have been too nice to your for too long.

We're through.