Defining what is God.

[TW Scott]

Okay random thoughts and questions

If a person can do something just for the sheer enjoyment of it, why would God be expressing a lack with the creation of the universe?

Why is there the base assumption that god is supernatural? Logically it follows that the beaing that created the universe would be natural.

This thread is supposed to be about the definition of God, not an argument of whether God exists.

Claiming God does not exist is not not any different that claiming God does exist, both are unprovable beliefs.

 

[imaplanck.]

Okay random thoughts and questions

If a person can do something just for the sheer enjoyment of it, why would God be expressing a lack with the creation of the universe?

Why is there the base assumption that god is supernatural? Logically it follows that the beaing that created the universe would be natural.

This thread is supposed to be about the definition of God, not an argument of whether God exists.

Claiming God does not exist is not not any different that claiming God does exist, both are unprovable beliefs.

Incorrect- 'god exists' is indeed a provable belief!
YEs 'god doesn't exist' is however unprovable, but so is the easter bunny or any other human concieved joy.

 

[TheVisitor]

It's like asking why is natural birth more reasonable than virgin birth... It's a no-brainier.

Actually it is your brain here that is getting in the way.

 

[TW Scott]

Incorrect- 'god exists' is indeed a provable belief!
YEs 'god doesn't exist' is however unprovable, but so is the easter bunny or any other human concieved joy.

Actually proving the existance of something we are not equipped to understand is impossible. If we cannot understand it we cannt identify it if we ever do find it. So in all reality is is complete unprovable. Try to keep up.

 

[imaplanck.]

Actually proving the existance of something we are not equipped to understand is impossible. If we cannot understand it we cannt identify it if we ever do find it. So in all reality is is complete unprovable. Try to keep up.

[Insult Removed] have convenient get outs too.
I reiterate if god exists as told i.e. he shows himself to certain people, it is provable. If you claim something affects us in the extreme that the bible does -it is indeed PROVABLE!

 

[lightgigantic]

[Insult Removed]have convinient get outs too.
I reiterate if god exists as told i.e. he shows himself to certain people, it is provable. If you claim somerthing effects us in the extreme tat the bible does -it is indeed PROVABLE!

therefore god is proven to a certain class of people (ie saintly people or persons who have successfully applied spiritual methods).

Just like the president of the united states is not directly perceived by the joe on the street - the president is however perceived by the joe on the street by media (or the relaying of persons who have direct perception)

Its not within the capacity of the joe on the street to determine the truth of the claims of the media, however they may go a certain distance by logic (like for instance is the country's utilities are running nicely and there are not tanks smashing down walls in the cities, one can determine something about the capacity of th epresident - in the same way one can travel a certain distance in god realisation by logic by examining the precision of the macro to the micro within the universe)

 

[TheVisitor]

Our mere understanding of nature and our discovery of explanations is what reduces the need for a supernatural god.

Science the more it advances, is understanding the truths that have been in the bible all along.

Quantum physics, Nuclear physics, ect..

Miracles involve Faith to operate them.

The Faith that comes from a total lack of doubt in the subconscious, where the power of creation exists ...man in his ignorance and unbelief call supernatural.
And in a way it is .....to pass that barrier, the wall between the conscience and subconscious, there also demons lie.
A dangerous place indeed.

Science would call visions precognition, discernment of the Holy Spirit some kind of "mental telepathy", it makes up names like telekinesis, for the manipulation of mater on a subatomic level that makes up all of this "creation" by those which are in reality existing outside this illusion the five senses experience.
Faith is the sixth sense.

Without it one can not understand "reality", Einstein said.
Wonder what he was getting at?

So as science advances the understanding of the carnal man's mind, their own definition of what is "supernatural" is constantly being pushed back little by little, until they will realize there is no supernatural.......only the natural truths they had misunderstood in their ignorance all along.

It was they, in their unbelief all along that were the fearful and superstitious ones.
Science is merely asking questions and learning the same truths.....without taking God's Word for it but coming to the same results.

However without Faith, and the character of God that comes with it, such power contained within this knowledge will burn them up.
It is the deciding factor, when all else fails and they are faced with the supernatural they can't explain, the carnaly minded will call the power of God the "works of the devil".
They called Jesus Beelzebub, before they would admit He was the Son of God.
Who then are the blind and superstitious?

Those whom the Lord has held in chains of darkness for their unbelief.


Black absorbs heat from light, white repels it.
Any little black spot in the heart of man, when brought into the presence of the Son, will burn them up.
"The heart of man is desperately wicked, and who can know it?"

There is more to life than the discovery of knowledge, even to the supernatural.
The power of the Holy Spirit to bestow upon mortal man a temporary oneness of mind and lack of doubt that can operate the creative power locked within the sub conscience mind of man, is not the true prize.

Jesus told His disciples as they rejoiced in this new found power, to rather rejoice their names are "On the Book" in heaven, that the love of God be found in their hearts.
That is the true prize, that reveals sonship.
A love of the truth.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I reiterate if god exists as told i.e. he shows himself to certain people, it is provable. If you claim something effects us in the extreme tat the bible does -it is indeed PROVABLE!

*************
M*W: But, why would "IT" show "ITSELF" to only "certain people?" I believe that if there were a god, "IT" would show "ITSELF" to all of humankind.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

“
god can produce something that is contingent yet seperate from him, even to the point of obscuring him - just like the sun can produce sunshine, the sunshine can evaporate water, the water vapour can form clouds and the clouds can block the vision of the sun
”
SEparate from him in what sense? In an ultimate sense, it would be absurd to say an infinite being can somehow be "separate" from something else?

seperate in the sense that it is not directly him - just like the sunshine is not directly the sun (the sunlight may enter through a window, and even though we may say the sun is coming through the window, obviously we don't mean that the window and the earth is completely distintergrated by the suoer hot temperatures if the sun).
So just as the sunlight is part of the sun yet not the sun, a table is part of god's creation but is not god

Consider this argument from Immanuel Kant (who funnyu enough, loves the word Transcendental as you do): Space must be infinite because two distinct spaces must be spatially related. Accordingly, all space must be ultimately singular.

however consider if one is leashed (like say a dog on a chain tied to a pole) - no matter which way they run they go in circles - in the same way a conditoned soul is limited in their negotiation of greater space

“
he could make one for you
”
He could make me think I am seeing an object that is both a square and a circle -possibly- (and even then I am skeptical and considering why this is not so) but he could not make a square which is simulteneously both square and circle in the same manner.

To be square is to not be a circle, as a square requires a definition that cannot be encapsulated in circlehood.

how about a square that constantly changed into a circle the moment your mind conceived of it as a square and which then instantly reverted back into a square the moment your mind conceived of it as a circle? What would you call such a shape?

“
its not clear how action/influence is synonymous with lack (of course the platform of action for god is merely his desire - generally if we desire something we have to work for it)
”
All action is directed towards a goal, is it not? Yet a goal implies that we have something to do, no? And that all voluntional actions require a desire, yes? And all desires require some lack? I cannot choose to do something for greater happiness and satisfaction if I all ready have infinite quantities of both.

therefore most of god's actions are for the benefit of those that do not have infinite reserves of both - obligational duty or prescribed duties are the dynamic that the universe operates on (ie how a great thing interacts with a lesser thing and vice versa)

BG 3.21: Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

BG 3.22: O son of Pṛthā, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything — and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties.

BG 3.23: For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed duties, O Pārtha, certainly all men would follow My path.

BG 3.24: If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings.

BG 3.25: As the ignorant perform their duties with attachment to results, the learned may similarly act, but without attachment, for the sake of leading people on the right path.

BG 3.26: So as not to disrupt the minds of ignorant men attached to the fruitive results of prescribed duties, a learned person should not induce them to stop work. Rather, by working in the spirit of devotion, he should engage them in all sorts of activities [for the gradual development of Kṛṣṇa consciousness].

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: But, why would "IT" show "ITSELF" to only "certain people?" I believe that if there were a god, "IT" would show "ITSELF" to all of humankind.

why should god, the most greatest 'thing' of phenomena, be at the whims of our direct sense perception.
If we don't have the capacity to call important persons of the mundane world , like the president of the united states, within our direct perception, why should everyone have teh capacity to see god, outside parameters of personal qualification?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

lightgigantic: therefore god is proven to a certain class of people (ie saintly people or persons who have successfully applied spiritual methods).

*************
M*W: If there were a god, it (god) would not only be recognized by a "certain class of people," but would be recognized by every human being from the time (or even before) they were born!

Just like the president of the united states is not directly perceived by the joe on the street - the president is however perceived by the joe on the street by media (or the relaying of persons who have direct perception)

*************
M*W: While this statement may bear some truth to it, the "average Joe on the street," is commonplace to the general public opinion. That does not mean that the elected officials agree with the "average Joe on the street" on most policies.

Its not within the capacity of the joe on the street to determine the truth of the claims of the media, however they may go a certain distance by logic (like for instance is the country's utilities are running nicely and there are not tanks smashing down walls in the cities, one can determine something about the capacity of th epresident - in the same way one can travel a certain distance in god realisation by logic by examining the precision of the macro to the micro within the universe)

*************
M*W: Yes, you're right. The "average Joe on the street" cannot determine what is the truth presented by the media. Those "certain claims" you mention are most likely created to "sell" the news. Understanding an individual's claim regarding (i.e. the President) does not require media interpretation at all.

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

seperate in the sense that it is not directly him - just like the sunshine is not directly the sun (the sunlight may enter through a window, and even though we may say the sun is coming through the window, obviously we don't mean that the window and the earth is completely distintergrated by the suoer hot temperatures if the sun).
So just as the sunlight is part of the sun yet not the sun, a table is part of god's creation but is not god

I will agree that in the normal sense of the word separate, as the rays of sun are separate form the sun, all thiungs are separate from God, I.E. parts and not holes.

however consider if one is leashed (like say a dog on a chain tied to a pole) - no matter which way they run they go in circles - in the same way a conditoned soul is limited in their negotiation of greater space

This is feasible, yes. Infinity does not mean a freedom to experience infinity, just as humans cannot rightfully live under water without the right precautions, or fish above land.

how about a square that constantly changed into a circle the moment your mind conceived of it as a square and which then instantly reverted back into a square the moment your mind conceived of it as a circle? What would you call such a shape?

I would likely call such a shape a blur, as it would constantly be changing. In essence: It would not be a shape, but an oscillation between circle and square.

therefore most of god's actions are for the benefit of those that do not have infinite reserves of both - obligational duty or prescribed duties are the dynamic that the universe operates on (ie how a great thing interacts with a lesser thing and vice versa)

Yet even for God to -have- to do such things is to lack, as it is not within his capacity to be as he is without being compelled by lesser beings. Accordingly, such would betray a weakness exploited perpetually.

 

[lightgigantic]

Medicine woman

“
lightgigantic: therefore god is proven to a certain class of people (ie saintly people or persons who have successfully applied spiritual methods).
”
*************
M*W: If there were a god, it (god) would not only be recognized by a "certain class of people," but would be recognized by every human being from the time (or even before) they were born!

given that we cannot even remember what it was like in the womb, its not apparent why

“
Just like the president of the united states is not directly perceived by the joe on the street - the president is however perceived by the joe on the street by media (or the relaying of persons who have direct perception)
”
*************
M*W: While this statement may bear some truth to it, the "average Joe on the street," is commonplace to the general public opinion.
That does not mean that the elected officials agree with the "average Joe on the street" on most policies.

and therefore it is the joe on the street who loses out

“
Its not within the capacity of the joe on the street to determine the truth of the claims of the media, however they may go a certain distance by logic (like for instance is the country's utilities are running nicely and there are not tanks smashing down walls in the cities, one can determine something about the capacity of th epresident - in the same way one can travel a certain distance in god realisation by logic by examining the precision of the macro to the micro within the universe)
”
*************
M*W: Yes, you're right. The "average Joe on the street" cannot determine what is the truth presented by the media. Those "certain claims" you mention are most likely created to "sell" the news. Understanding an individual's claim regarding (i.e. the President) does not require media interpretation at all.

unless the president frequents one's house to take lunch or something then its not apparent what other resources (if not the media) we have access to that enables us to form a picture of the president - like for instance if I said that george bush is not the president and that actually bill clinton has been in office all this time, what would you think?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince JAmes

“
seperate in the sense that it is not directly him - just like the sunshine is not directly the sun (the sunlight may enter through a window, and even though we may say the sun is coming through the window, obviously we don't mean that the window and the earth is completely distintergrated by the suoer hot temperatures if the sun).
So just as the sunlight is part of the sun yet not the sun, a table is part of god's creation but is not god
”
I will agree that in the normal sense of the word separate, as the rays of sun are separate form the sun, all thiungs are separate from God, I.E. parts and not holes.

however to take this analogy to the next level - if you flew a rocket into the sun, wouldn't youhave a different experience than merely dealing with the sunshine?

In otherwords you get one experience by dealing with the sun indirectly, and you get a different result from dealing with the sun directly -

In the same way not everything is seperate from god, distinguished by the results (in short, that which causes forgetfulness of god is the indirect energy and that which causes rememberence is the direct energy.... since after all, everything, whether it be forgetfulness or rememberence, is contingent on god)
“

however consider if one is leashed (like say a dog on a chain tied to a pole) - no matter which way they run they go in circles - in the same way a conditoned soul is limited in their negotiation of greater space
”
This is feasible, yes. Infinity does not mean a freedom to experience infinity, just as humans cannot rightfully live under water without the right precautions, or fish above land.

therefore the distinction in one's capacity to negotiate spiritual and material realms (or even higher aspects of the mundane creation) is dependant on one's conditioning

“
how about a square that constantly changed into a circle the moment your mind conceived of it as a square and which then instantly reverted back into a square the moment your mind conceived of it as a circle? What would you call such a shape?
”
I would likely call such a shape a blur, as it would constantly be changing. In essence: It would not be a shape, but an oscillation between circle and square.

what if there was no metamorphis - it was just an instantaneous transformation - the moment you conceived of it as a circle i sthe moment it appeared to be square - so it wouldn't be a blur since you could distinguish moments of squareness and circlness - (a blur is like the rotating of a plane's propeller - it is beyond the ability of your mind and eyes to perceive the location of the propeller blades

(BTW - there is a description of Lord Brahma's abode like this in the Mahabharata that deals with descriptions of the higher material planets- in brief, Lord Brahma is not god although he is the most intelligent material creature in creation, being composed of pure mind (mind is consciered a material element) - anyway there is no description of his abode because the moment one forms an image of what it looks like (in one's mind) it changes into something else

“
therefore most of god's actions are for the benefit of those that do not have infinite reserves of both - obligational duty or prescribed duties are the dynamic that the universe operates on (ie how a great thing interacts with a lesser thing and vice versa)
”
Yet even for God to -have- to do such things is to lack, as it is not within his capacity to be as he is without being compelled by lesser beings. Accordingly, such would betray a weakness exploited perpetually.

therefore it becomes an act of love, since god does not 'have' to do it, but he feels obliged to - just like the mother is not obliged to look after her child for the next 25 years after giving birth.
The difference is however that god's performance of prescribed duties is completely blissful for him, since he has relegated indirect potencies to deal with those living entities who are degraded by ignorance and his own direct potencies for dealing with those who have unmotivated pure love for him

 

[SnakeLord]

therefore it becomes an act of love, since god does not 'have' to do it, but he feels obliged to - just like the mother is not obliged to look after her child for the next 25 years after giving birth.

It need be mentioned that 'an act of love' and 'feeling obliged' are two different things. Mothers, (and fathers thank you very much - we are more than sperm donors), love looking after their children. I couldn't imagine anything better in life than looking after my children, helping them learn and grow etc - completely regardless to how they might feel about me. That is love. Those that disagree are merely bad parents. gods do not come close to this: they threaten their own children with eternal fire, remain hidden from their children for their whole lives - and yet you then say it is the child that is "degraded by ignorance" - but then who's fault is that?

I was adopted, never knew my parents. Is it now my fault? Am I to blame for never knowing my parents because they were never there? The simple fact of the matter is that a large enough portion of the planet are 'adopted' children when it comes to god and it isn't their fault.

Then you go on to mention 'unmotivated pure love for him', and I can only cringe at the selfishness of the whole thing. It's like telling your child if he loves you you'll be a nice parent but if he doesn't love you you'll set him on fire. It's pretty sick from a parents perspective.

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

however to take this analogy to the next level - if you flew a rocket into the sun, wouldn't youhave a different experience than merely dealing with the sunshine?

In otherwords you get one experience by dealing with the sun indirectly, and you get a different result from dealing with the sun directly -

In the same way not everything is seperate from god, distinguished by the results (in short, that which causes forgetfulness of god is the indirect energy and that which causes rememberence is the direct energy.... since after all, everything, whether it be forgetfulness or rememberence, is contingent on god)

I would certainly agree that the experience would be dramatically different, specifically in intensity. However, that being said, I do not think this applies to God, as an infinite being presented "in greater density" in one area, or condensed "into a higher form", implies contradictions of terms. Infinite beings cannot truly condense, nor can they have a higher form if by definition, it is infinite and perfect.

therefore the distinction in one's capacity to negotiate spiritual and material realms (or even higher aspects of the mundane creation) is dependant on one's conditioning

A sensible proposition.

what if there was no metamorphis - it was just an instantaneous transformation - the moment you conceived of it as a circle i sthe moment it appeared to be square - so it wouldn't be a blur since you could distinguish moments of squareness and circlness - (a blur is like the rotating of a plane's propeller - it is beyond the ability of your mind and eyes to perceive the location of the propeller blades

I would then consider it quite magical, to say the least.

therefore it becomes an act of love, since god does not 'have' to do it, but he feels obliged to - just like the mother is not obliged to look after her child for the next 25 years after giving birth.

Yet as shown by Plato, love is desire for the object of love. Accordingly, the desirous nature of love (which Plato called neither mortal, nor Godly, but daemonic [spiritual]) precludes its capacity to be an aspect of God, as God would, by definition, have no object he would not all ready have.

 

[TheVisitor]

I was adopted, never knew my parents.
Then you go on to mention 'unmotivated pure love for him', and I can only cringe at the selfishness of the whole thing. It's like telling your child if he loves you you'll be a nice parent but if he doesn't love you you'll set him on fire. It's pretty sick from a parents perspective.

Five years ago I might have felt sorry for you the first time I heard this.
But you have burnt that bridge long ago.

Your attempts at misinterpretation and mis-location of the scripture then trying to use your own carnal understanding of them to prove them wrong is an old trick.

But your tired of my "Tosh".....

What worries me is why your still at it, attempting to instill your hatred, apathy, and udder dejection towards God into the hearts and minds of the young here.

There are many out there much closer to an understanding of the present day truth than yourself trying the same thing.
You're not even in the right ballpark yet, so with what little light you have you hang out on a science forum to find someone who will listen.

I listened once and tried to help, but you just bit the hand......
Sorry you don't see anything but "Tosh".
There's not much more I can give you at this point old friend.

 

[SnakeLord]

Five years ago I might have felt sorry for you the first time I heard this.
But you have burnt that bridge long ago.

To be honest, and without trying to sound rude, your sorrow would be meaningless to me. That's not because I don't like you, which I don't, but because I have never really taken things that way. My parent's lack of being parents have ensured that I am a damn good one with my children, their faults give me the ability to understand not only why some parents don't want or cannot keep their children but also how the child feels as well and so on.

Your attempts at misinterpretation and mis-location of the scripture then trying to use your own carnal understanding of them to prove them wrong is an old trick.

I'm sorry, but unless you can show where I have done anything of the kind your statements have no value. If I'm not mistaken it is you who is 'making things up' unwarranted because, (from what I can remember), some preacher dude you listen to that says he's jesus come back as promised yada yada not because of scripture or anything else. I'm sorry but scripture does not support your claim that the snake had sex with Eve who then had a child of satan who then fathered us non-religious humans. In saying, the only alternative explanation is that you pulled it out of thin air.

But your tired of my "Tosh".....

Certainly, generally because it's pulled out of thin air. I'm still sitting here waiting for you to tell me who estimated that Adam had an IQ of 2000 and how he came to that conclusion. You of course cannot even answer a simple question such as that, (simple because to make the statement you must know who estimated it). Your failure to answer that question, (instead just pretending the question was never asked), can only lead to the conclusion that you made it up... out of thin air.

Anytime you like you can show me to be wrong, and yet you don't.

What worries me is why your still at it, attempting to instill your hatred, apathy, and udder dejection towards God into the hearts and minds of the young here.

But am I really? You'll find if you go through all my posts that the majority of them are questions. I start getting a tad more blunt of course when people such as yourself refuse to answer those questions while expecting me to take what you say as absolute truth undeniable. And I sit here wondering why, (especially given that the questions are easy enough to answer - or should be), that people are so willing to make claims and yet so unwilling to support them. People simply cannot go through life like that, it's ludicrous.

My personal disbelief in gods is not justification for everyone else to be unable to answer simple questions.

There's not much more I can give you at this point old friend.

For the last time: We are not friends.

 

[imaplanck.]

*************
M*W: But, why would "IT" show "ITSELF" to only "certain people?" I believe that if there were a god, "IT" would show "ITSELF" to all of humankind.

Well indeed, yes!

 

[qwerty mob]

"All Gods are imaginary, mythological beings." -Kamian

on what strength should we accept this statement? Charisma?

That it is the only working definition that satisfies the problem of "other Gods" and that of the total lack of objective evidence for any deities, anywhere, ever.

As for charisma, having not considered the statement which prompted your ire, you are hardly in a position to speculate of it's author.