Defining what is God.

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

I object to the greatness of a Krishna-esque "I am time, destroyer of worlds!" transcendent form. Upon this foundation: The existence displayed to Arjuna is temporal, spatial, and limited.

The logical perfection of existence is infinity in space and time. This implies a being who is not here, or there, but everywhere and who must necessarily be. This is not to be found in the Krishna account of the Bhagavad-Gita, although it is found in the Upanishads as Brahman.

And I will still add that the localized form of eternity, immutability etc, as a more greater conception of god

Actually, one must ask whether this is possible at all. For that which is impossible cannot actually be imagined.

I'd charge that anything non-infinite is non-eternal by virtue of temporal spatiality being a contingent, and not a necessary, quality.

 

[everneo]

The logical perfection of existence is infinity in space and time. This implies a being who is not here, or there, but everywhere and who must necessarily be. This is not to be found in the Krishna account of the Bhagavad-Gita, although it is found in the Upanishads as Brahman.

There are many times Krishna points out his transcendence and immanence in BG. During the course of Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna shows his cosmic form to Arjun. The description of his cosmic form goes like that Krishna transcends time & space and seen everywhere by Arjun which fits the description of Brahman of Vedas/Upanishads.

 

[Prince_James]

Everneo:

Many Krishnas does not prove transcendence and immanence. It proves replication, if anything at all.

Moreover, the "transcendent form" which is shown to Arjuna would be the true "most perfect God". That is, if the sight given to Arjuna perceived the totality of infinity, then that form of Krishna in its reality (which is everything) would concord with the perfection of time and space, but not Krishna who initiates it. That is to say, the personalized, individual Krishna, cannot be construed as a supreme deity inline with philosophical reasoning.

 

[lightgigantic]

a god that can be conceived of existing is better than a god that is conceived of as not existing.

Infinite is not existing.

Then how is it possible fo rmathemetaics to represent many non-existant terms for determining existant phenomena (like for instance using pi for determining the circumference of a circle)

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

That could apply to a race of beings in another part of the universe who are the most advanced of all races since the BB (assuming for sake of argument there was a BB).

That doesn't seem to fit the type of qualities we normally expect from gods.

first we have to arrive at a definition that no one can conceive of as greater, and then we have to establish that th e origins of such an entity is from a material planet (although I can conceive of a god who's origin is a spiritual universe where the laws that characterize the material world, such as the reduction to thermodynamically stable states, is not existant)

 

[lightgigantic]

Everneo:

Many Krishnas does not prove transcendence and immanence. It proves replication, if anything at all.

Moreover, the "transcendent form" which is shown to Arjuna would be the true "most perfect God". That is, if the sight given to Arjuna perceived the totality of infinity, then that form of Krishna in its reality (which is everything) would concord with the perfection of time and space, but not Krishna who initiates it. That is to say, the personalized, individual Krishna, cannot be construed as a supreme deity inline with philosophical reasoning.

I can conceive of a god who, if the sum total of the manifested universes were placed on one side of the scales and god was placed on the other, woul dtip the scales in his favour - in other word sI can conceive of a god who is greater than the cosmic manifestation, hence being the localized form of all and everything would not be a contradiction

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

[everneo]

Many Krishnas does not prove transcendence and immanence. It proves replication, if anything at all.

Where is replication implied? Seeing Krishna everywhere is not necessarily seeing his duplicates everywhere.

Moreover, the "transcendent form" which is shown to Arjuna would be the true "most perfect God". That is, if the sight given to Arjuna perceived the totality of infinity, then that form of Krishna in its reality (which is everything) would concord with the perfection of time and space, but not Krishna who initiates it. That is to say, the personalized, individual Krishna, cannot be construed as a supreme deity inline with philosophical reasoning.

Arjun seemed to be terrified at the sight of Krishna's cosmic form, hence what he had seen might not be the mortal form of Krishna which was pleasant.

 

[lightgigantic]

I interpret immutable to mean unchanging. People change from moment to moment. This is rarely acknowledged by the legal system.

The reason it isn't acknowledged by the legal system, is because it is apparent how the sense of self persists throught apparent decisions and changes - th e whole principle of punishment and reward, a principle of existence that appears incredibly absurd in its absence, depends on this

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

I can conceive of a god who, if the sum total of the manifested universes were placed on one side of the scales and god was placed on the other, woul dtip the scales in his favour - in other word sI can conceive of a god who is greater than the cosmic manifestation, hence being the localized form of all and everything would not be a contradiction

Actually, you cannot. For this reason: That which has neither space nor time cannot be said to exist. If you go beyond any manifestation where space and time would have no meaning, you have nothingness - the default where somethingness is lacking. Therefore, to speak of something beyond the manifestation of infinity in a connected sense with everything else, is to speak of nothingness, which is not a thing which can be considered greater, as it is not a thing to begin with.

Moreover, space and time are manifestly infinite. GOd cannot exceed the infinite, or it would not be infinite. THerefore, God is beholden to space and time.

Everneo:

He is catching a glimpse of what infinity must entail. This would obviously be terrifying, yes. But he is essentially looking as through a porthole, not experiencing all things contained within Krishna right there.

 

[Pete]

I think that "Omnipresent" is insufficient in a dimensionalist view of time.

If time is a dimension like space, and if X is that for which nothing greater can be conceived, then X must be not only everywhere, but also everywhen. That leads to the idea that X must transcend everything else, ie that all existence is contained within the context of X.

Anthropomorphizing X and applying fuzzy notions of "God" to it, you could visualize such a beast as existing in higher dimensions, looking at all the Universe from start to finish at once, spread out before it like an incredible four dimensional rug, and able to adjust any element at will (thus implying omniscience, omnipotence, and (obviously) intelligence).

But, I can conceive of a something greater... imagine such a being at work. Adjusting something here, observing the effects there:

"let's see, if we nudge this asteroid here, then it misses the Earth there, and the future of the Universe looks like that. But if I instead nudge it here, then it wipes out dinosaurs there, and the future of the Universe looks like that."​

But this implies a past and a future for that being... and I can conceive of a greater being that can observe the other being's future all at once in the same way.

Therefore, if X is that for which nothing greater can be conceived, then X must know not only all space and time, but all possible spaces and times. It also implies strict immutability. If a being can change, then it must exist within time, and we can conceive of a great being that knows the first being's complete timeline.

So, I define God as:
An intelligent being that transcends all space and time, that knows all possible timelines for the Universe, and that has chosen or allowed one or more of those timelines to be real.


"Transcends all space and time" implies Neccessary, Immutable, and Eternal.

There are some very interesting implications of this model if you proceed to the idea of a benevolent God that listens and responds to prayer.

 

[everneo]

He is catching a glimpse of what infinity must entail. This would obviously be terrifying, yes. But he is essentially looking as through a porthole, not experiencing all things contained within Krishna right there.

But this restriction is on Arjun's perception rather than on real form of Krishna.

 

[VitalOne]

God is defined as:
- unchanging
- eternal
- the absolute
- existing before there was any cause or effect or any material world
- the origin of existence
- reality itself
- the cause of all causes
- unmade, unborn, uncreated, unformed

 

[Pete]

Actually, you cannot. For this reason: That which has neither space nor time cannot be said to exist. If you go beyond any manifestation where space and time would have no meaning, you have nothingness - the default where somethingness is lacking. Therefore, to speak of something beyond the manifestation of infinity in a connected sense with everything else, is to speak of nothingness, which is not a thing which can be considered greater, as it is not a thing to begin with.

Moreover, space and time are manifestly infinite. GOd cannot exceed the infinite, or it would not be infinite. Therefore, God is beholden to space and time.

Hrm... sounds like a physical limitation rather than a conceptual one.

We're talking about Anselm's definition - "that for which nothing greater can be conceived", regardless of the actual existence of such a thing.

We can conceive of higher dimensions of space and time, regardless of their actual existence.

I don't think that it is settled that space and time are necessarily infinite, either. It is possible (probable?) that this is physically the case, but I think that it'is a contingent truth if so.

 

[Pete]

God is defined as:
- unchanging
- eternal
- the absolute
- existing before there was any cause or effect or any material world
- the origin of existence
- reality itself
- the cause of all causes
- unmade, unborn, uncreated, unformed

I notice that you haven't implied intelligence or even awareness. Was that deliberate?

 

[Prince_James]

Everneo:

The real form of Krishna, as a transcendent being encapsulating everything, as briefly witnessed by Arjuna, does concord with what an omnipotent and omnipresent God must have.

Pete:

All possible spaces and times can be encapsulated in an infinite existence with infinite time - we needn't go out of time and space for this.

Moreover, if this being that you postualte is conscious, it must change. For in order to b econscious, one must have thought, yet thought can only exist sequentially and in change. Indeed, this is why God cannot be conscious - as thought implies something non-immutable.

To be outside of time and space is to have neither time and space. Yet all thought requires time and space. Therefore, one cannot think of a timeless, spaceless being.

That which has neither space nor time is nothing. Unless God is nothingness - which would surely not be "greatest" - then God cannot be neither outside of space nor time.

There are some very interesting implications of this model if you proceed to the idea of a benevolent God that listens and responds to prayer.

Impossible without time, as it requires action on the part of said God.

 

[Prince_James]

Pete:

Hrm... sounds like a physical limitation rather than a conceptual one.

To discuss spaceless, timeless, "greater than infinity" beings is to speak of something which can neither be thought, nor coherently put forth.

We're talking about Anselm's definition - "that for which nothing greater can be conceived", regardless of the actual existence of such a thing.

Actually, that is part of the argument.

For reference's sake, here is the simplified form of the argument:

God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
The concept of God exists in human understanding.
God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

- Wikipedia.

We can conceive of higher dimensions of space and time, regardless of their actual existence.

Actually, I don't think we've ever been able to prove a higher dimension than the 3rd + Time. We've given crude, three-dimensional analogues to a 4th dimension, but haven't ever produced a conceivable 4th spatial dimensional object.

I don't think that it is settled that space and time are necessarily infinite, either. It is possible (probable?) that this is physically the case, but I think that it'is a contingent truth if so.

Consider this simplistic form of a longer argument I have:

Ultimately, there is only somethingness or nothingness.
Accordingly, if somethingness were to end, nothingness would prevail.
Yet in order to prevail, nothingness must exist, which violates its nothingness.
Thus somethingness extends infinitely.

 

[VitalOne]

I notice that you haven't implied intelligence or even awareness. Was that deliberate?

Well, God has no material intellect or consciousness, otherwise how could he be unchanging, eternal, the witness?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince james

, you cannot. For this reason: That which has neither space nor time cannot be said to exist. If you go beyond any manifestation where space and time would have no meaning, you have nothingness - the default where somethingness is lacking. Therefore, to speak of something beyond the manifestation of infinity in a connected sense with everything else, is to speak of nothingness, which is not a thing which can be considered greater, as it is not a thing to begin with.

Moreover, space and time are manifestly infinite. GOd cannot exceed the infinite, or it would not be infinite. THerefore, God is beholden to space and time.

What if the extent of space and time are dependant on god, just like the extent of heat and smoke are dependant on a fire - if you had an eternal infinite fire, you would have eternal infinite smoke

Actually unless you have a god that is greater than the effects he causes, you cannot have a god that is neither omnipotent or independant, since the casues (in this case time and space) would be greater than him and the variables he relies upon to display independence

:

The real form of Krishna, as a transcendent being encapsulating everything, as briefly witnessed by Arjuna, does concord with what an omnipotent and omnipresent God must have.

what do you think is missing from Arjuna's experience that disqualifies it as an experience of Krishna's omnipotency (what potencies were neglected a mention in the chapter about the universal form?)

 

[one_raven]

But what is a generic definition of a god? Why must there be only one god, and why must a god be defined as more powerful than any other? These all sound like arbitrary limitations.

My first impression was that I don't think there necessarily has to be only one God, but if there is any God, odds are there is a first, most powerful God that is the creator.
I started with a form of the cosmological argument:
IF we define God as eternal, God could not have been created, obviously...

As I was running through this line of reasoning, I realized that I could think of no reason that if one God is eternal, that there couldn't be more than one eternal God.

Eternal.
Immutable.
Infinite.
Necessary.

Please tell me specifically what you mean by "infinite".
Does eternal and omnipresent not cover it?

I don't see why God has to be immutable.
I can understand WANTING God to be necessary, but I don't see why God HAS to be necessary.
If God is defined as the creator of all, then he would certainly be required as the first cause - but why should the Deist account of a God which is no longer necessry be summarily discounted?

This also begs another question:
Does the definition of God necessarily include creation - or at least first cause?

 

[Prince_James]

One Raven:

Please tell me specifically what you mean by "infinite".
Does eternal and omnipresent not cover it?

Eternal covers it temporally, but spatially one could be omnipresent yet not infinite. That is, if space was limited, one would not be infinite in space.

So this is an argument both for all space (not necessarily in this universe alone) and for God: That he is spatially extended outwards in all directions infinitely.

I don't see why God has to be immutable.

Consider that if one is perfect in every category, that to change at all is to admit of a defect. One cannot move from one perfect state to another perfect state, without passing through imperfections. Similarly, things such as spatial infinity admit of no change.

I can understand WANTING God to be necessary, but I don't see why God HAS to be necessary.

If something is eternal, does not this speak of necessity? Existence could not be conceived of existing without it, no? For that is the only reason something would not be subject to the viccisitudes of existence, no?

If God is defined as the creator of all, then he would certainly be required as the first cause - but why should the Deist account of a God which is no longer necessry be summarily discounted?

I actually find the account of creating very suspect. For what would a God who is omnipresent create? If he is all ready present in all things, then it stands to reason that space is all ready ultimately existent.

This also begs another question:
Does the definition of God necessarily include creation - or at least first cause?

Definitely not. Also, in an eternal system one cannot have a rightful first cause. An eternal system with a first cause has a beginning, yet eternity can neither have beginning nor end.

LightGigantic:

What if the extent of space and time are dependant on god, just like the extent of heat and smoke are dependant on a fire - if you had an eternal infinite fire, you would have eternal infinite smoke

Then certainly one could conceive of greater space, could one not? The only thing which cannot be conceived to be greater is infinity - by definition, it is that which nothing can exceed, nor can admit of summary addition.

Actually unless you have a god that is greater than the effects he causes, you cannot have a god that is neither omnipotent or independant, since the casues (in this case time and space) would be greater than him and the variables he relies upon to display independence

Certainly, you admit that nothing can be greater than itself also, yes?

what do you think is missing from Arjuna's experience that disqualifies it as an experience of Krishna's omnipotency (what potencies were neglected a mention in the chapter about the universal form?)

I actually was affirming only the vehicle for the expression was flawed. That is to say, Krishna as a restricted time-space entity inspiring a vision/opening up as a gateway into that form would be insufficient, in and of itself, to be called God in a philosophic sense. It is only that transcendental form, of all things, that can rightfully be considered to fulfill the role of God.