you are god. you just used your unlimited powers to make you forget it, so that you could find god.
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
you are god. you just used your unlimited powers to make you forget it, so that you could find god.
Such definitions leave the term "god" completely useless. If the definition is to be made so broad and inclusive as to include everything, why even have the term? We already have the words "everything" and "all." The word "universe" is more apt. So the term 'god' is unnecessary.
Those that chose to believe in the supernatural and the superstitious seem all too eager to lay claim to the universe without any real justification whatsoever.
Those that chose to believe in the supernatural and the superstitious seem all too eager to lay claim to the universe without any real justification whatsoever.
Prince James
its more than just density - like for instance the smoke of a fire can trail for quite a distance, yet you can't cook with smoke - in other words there are specific qualities of the energetic that are not visible within t he energy (fire has qualities of heat and light that are not visible in smoke).
As for something being localized and appearing smaller within its application, its possible for a 20mb program to be compressed to occupy a portion of the decompressed program and be less than 40mb. It could even occupy an earlier version of the application that might only run at 15mb in total
It is not sufficient to possess something to evoke its loving reciprocation - turning up the tyranical volume in a relationship is a sure way to dissolve it - like for instance, if a man takes a stick and says to his lover "you must love me otherwise I will beat you" she will hate him, even if she didn't before hand
Therefore the apparently godless nature of material existence (You can yell "where are you god?" in an inimical spirit on the top of every mountain and high rise on the globe and not reap any substantial results) is the perfect medium for the living entity to develop pure unmotivated love towards god (there is no "have to" or "you must" in "love for god"), since one can live (and die) repeatedly in the material world enjoying (and suffering) in 8 400 000 species of life within 14 planetray systems (universal picture according to the vedas) for as long as one desires
its more than just density - like for instance the smoke of a fire can trail for quite a distance, yet you can't cook with smoke - in other words there are specific qualities of the energetic that are not visible within t he energy (fire has qualities of heat and light that are not visible in smoke).
As for something being localized and appearing smaller within its application, its possible for a 20mb program to be compressed to occupy a portion of the decompressed program and be less than 40mb. It could even occupy an earlier version of the application that might only run at 15mb in total
still it is a logical possibility, particularly for an entity that has a jurisdiction over our mental processes (BTW the point about mentioned Brahma was to indicate that such things are possible for entities that do not even fit the description of god)
therefore god has created us with free will - in other words that is a seperated part of him that he will not possess (although he may control the medium through which free will is expressed)
It is not sufficient to possess something to evoke its loving reciprocation - turning up the tyranical volume in a relationship is a sure way to dissolve it - like for instance, if a man takes a stick and says to his lover "you must love me otherwise I will beat you" she will hate him, even if she didn't before hand
Therefore the apparently godless nature of material existence (You can yell "where are you god?" in an inimical spirit on the top of every mountain and high rise on the globe and not reap any substantial results) is the perfect medium for the living entity to develop pure unmotivated love towards god (there is no "have to" or "you must" in "love for god"), since one can live (and die) repeatedly in the material world enjoying (and suffering) in 8 400 000 species of life within 14 planetray systems (universal picture according to the vedas) for as long as one desires
I would agree - to call god "everything" is practically the same as calling him "nothing" - therefore the analysis of god's nature innvolves an analysis of his energies/potencies.
Part of this analysis is dealt with by the OP to this thread - god can be defined as that entity to whom nobody is greater or equal - so, by that definition anyway, the notion that everyone or everything is god can be dismissed (but you could say god is all pervasive and that the living entities have the capacity to behave in a 'godly' fashion)
then you would have to explain why god was in illusion in the first place so as to be incapable of discovering what he is to begin with (in other words your defintion of god at the onset - a god that can't find himself - is faulty, sinc ethat would make illusion/ignorance a stronger force than god)
how so?
like for instance does the idea that "all medicines are bogus" satisfy the problem of bogus medicines flooding the market? Its not sufficient to show that everyone gets it wrong because some get it wrong.
As for all objective evidence for god anywhere ever being absent, you seem to be excluding the claims of saintly persons, so you have to establish by what means you determined that their claims were not objective
and you have defined that "love" in terms of obligational duties (ie your use of the words "look after", "helping them learn and grow" etc)
For instance what would you make of a parent's claim to love their child yet their absence of the performance of obligational duties towards them (despite being fully capable for performing them in terms of finance, time etc)?
Isn't the performance of obligational duty (particularly in testing times) the means by which we determine the intensity of love?
according to the vedas hell is not eternal (it is destroyed along with the middle and higher planetary systems at the time of universal devastation) - however a little bit of time there feels like a long long long long time (just 5 minutes with your hand on a hot plate feels like an eternity and 5 minutes in the carribbean feels more quicker than a retinal after image).
As for suffering experienced in this world, to determine whether we are inncocent or not would require an examination of what we were doing in our previous life times - and given that we a re eternal and originally fell down from the spiritual realm, it appears that ignorance is something we have cultivated over many many life times
generally, but not always, an experience of being mistreated by authority is due to a persons inappropriate aperformance as an authority in a previous life time - the experience of the mistreatment is meant to establish a learning - of course I can anticipate your reluctance to accept the next life, what to speak of the previous one, but you would probably agree that your experience with adoption/as an orphan has played a major part in your strict attention to the details of parenthood (you are unlikely to misuse the authority of parenthood in this life)
Actually god gives us plenty of things - his even given us a seperate universe complete with everything required for peaceful life (but on account of our materialistic nature we tend to make a mess of things regularly, which requires the constangt descent of a stream of empowered personalities to re-establish religious principles, according to time place and circunmstance )
LightGigantic:
Yet certainly can God have not a central point, if he is to retain perfection. He would have to be, in a strong sense, imperfect everywhere else.
Yet can an infinite program be so compressed? Or a perfect one?
Certainly God cannot cut away his own perfection. To be perfect precludes the capacity to become imperfect.
Tell me, when a man sets out to be virtuous, his aim is to secure for himself goodness, yes? Accordingly, is it not the same when a man sets out to love? To secure for himself the object of love?
Yet certainly can God have not a central point, if he is to retain perfection. He would have to be, in a strong sense, imperfect everywhere else.
Yet can an infinite program be so compressed? Or a perfect one?
Certainly God cannot cut away his own perfection. To be perfect precludes the capacity to become imperfect.
Tell me, when a man sets out to be virtuous, his aim is to secure for himself goodness, yes? Accordingly, is it not the same when a man sets out to love? To secure for himself the object of love?
Prince James
SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.
I raised the issue that a contestant who comes 2nd in a miss america contest would feel proud to place that on her resume. So would one who came third. If a person came in at 12 897 345th they may be reluctant - the point was that something can be perfect (faultless) and something can be more perfect (more faultless) - its not like the contestants who come in as 2nd and 3rd are described or implied as "slightly more ugly"
It certainly wouldn't reduce the already infinite/perfect nature of things
to be either conditioned or liberated reflects the nature of our perfection
there are direct and indirect energies - just like smoke is an indirect energy of this heads back to an earlier stalemate we reached about the nature of god's perfection, particularly,
SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.
I raised the issue that a contestant who comes 2nd in a miss america contest would feel proud to place that on her resume. So would one who came third. If a person came in at 12 897 345th they may be reluctant - the point was that something can be perfect (faultless) and something can be more perfect (more faultless) - its not like the contestants who come in as 2nd and 3rd are described or implied as "slightly more ugly"
why not?
It certainly wouldn't reduce the already infinite/perfect nature of things
for god to be omnipotent he must display the unlimted potency and the limited potency - his personal nature is the former and we, the living entities, are the latter.
to be either conditioned or liberated reflects the nature of our perfection
the difference is that god's functional capacity does not suffer or diminish in the absence of exhibitions of love by the living entity - the same cannot be said of th eliving entity in regard to the absence of reciprocating with god (ie - we ar eforced to make the material world of ephemeral pleasures our home)
god, by definition (supreme controller) can only be singular, just like the sun is singular despite appearing to be located directly above 2 000 000 000 people's heads at midday
Says who, whos definition and what gives that definition any value?
Please, do not think the answer is a one-liner, (I know it's new year so I forgive you).
The reason I asked is that your statement would not apply to the biblical god, (to name just one). In saying I think a full definition is warranted - and of course reasoning behind that. "god can only be singular.." is not justified unless you show why "god can only be singular".. Why can there not be 100?
Then I think you have to establish on what grounds you say this defintion does not apply to the biblical god, which will probably be difficult for you since you don't identify yourself as a theistic practioner, much less a biblical one. (at the very least your views are not reflected by a christian who may attend an inter-faith dialougue)
as for the 'why there cannot be 100'
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59181
Last edited:
Have you considered the main problem with Monotheisms-- that of "Other Gods"? Monotheists are atheists too, they simply believe in one more god than I do. Think that over.
...
Bad analogy, nonsequiturs, and shifting the burden cheerfully ignored.
so the general principles you are applying is that if there are a variety of head ache tablets on the market and all of them have similar (if not identical ingredients) and all of them claim to cure head aches then th eobvious conclusion is that they are all false (or all of them except one are false) sincethere is something untenable about the idea that numerous articles could be claiming the same effect/qualities of successful application
No, you are.
...
My definition stands on the weight of its own merits; it is unambiguous, self-consistent, objective, and open to disproof.
Address it anytime.
I can't address it if you can't draw a connection between your definition and general principles - ie all you have is a confidence statement, which you can maintain for as long as you inflate it with confidence
fixed with confidence (sigh)
LightGigantic:
As you correctly pointed out, this is rather a stalemate. Until I think of other arguments to address this, we'll have to put this on hold, as I doubt we'll reach anything but further obstructions with me repeating my prior one, and you repeating this, and me repeating that, ad nauseum.
You will note that all compression entails a lessening of quality and cutting of data.
Certainly God cannot be held to be out of control of anything if you claim he is omnipotent. Accordingly, God does indeed control all things.
Yet to claim that God is seeking after such reciprocation is to say he lacks something in the absence of such. This requires an imperfection that repudiates your assertion that God does not suffer or diminish in the absence of Steve Johnson or Ram Vishnumurti's love.
As you correctly pointed out, this is rather a stalemate. Until I think of other arguments to address this, we'll have to put this on hold, as I doubt we'll reach anything but further obstructions with me repeating my prior one, and you repeating this, and me repeating that, ad nauseum.
You will note that all compression entails a lessening of quality and cutting of data.
Certainly God cannot be held to be out of control of anything if you claim he is omnipotent. Accordingly, God does indeed control all things.
Yet to claim that God is seeking after such reciprocation is to say he lacks something in the absence of such. This requires an imperfection that repudiates your assertion that God does not suffer or diminish in the absence of Steve Johnson or Ram Vishnumurti's love.
I don't believe in gods, I do not worship them or talk to them in my sleep if that's what you're asking but I am educated and I can read...
Duh, everyone's views are not reflected by someone else. What are you trying to tell me?
I will do, but this is going to be slightly longer, (I think). I shall be back to do it in... 3hrs if that's ok. Cheers.
Any chance you could sum it up briefly for me, (I don't want to get involved in another thread if I can help it). Thanks
Sure you do...........a "god" is an object of worship.
It can be anything, a block of wood, gold, a car, your spouse......your job......anything.
He has a hole in His soul only God was meant to fill.
If the God of heaven and earth isn't there, something else is.
You worship something and your knowledge of what that is.....is not even required.
Last edited:
A bit petty really, but hey such is life. I shall now ammend my statement, (which should be obvious what it was referring to with the word gods given the context of discussion but nevermind), to state that I do not believe in or worship gods. I do not worship anything.
Did the addition help?
Woman was made for man heh.. 0_o. Bet your wife has a great life.
I'm afraid you're wrong. I don't worship anything.
Why did it sound a beacon? Is he not aware of these things otherwise? Would he not have known a gazillion years ago? Secondly what is the value or worth for a god to devour my flesh? Does it taste nice to them? I mean what exactly is the point to an omnipotent, omniscient all loving god? What does eating me accomplish exactly?
ZzZzZzZzZzZz