Defining what is God.

Prince_James said:
LightGigantic:

So basically, you affirm that the verification of the Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, and other sources of authority in your religious tradition, comes from mystic experience in direct perception of God following discipleship?
Click to expand...
why would it be mystic?

otherwise, in regards to ....
1. know what the statement means

2. know the right way to verify it

3. have good evidence for believing it (Wilson, 1960:76)
Click to expand...

..... parampara (disciplic succession) deals with 1, a third of 2 (the other two being scripture and saintly persons) and nothing much with 3
 
I had meant through going through the teachings and practices in order to attain to that state where one's "vision of God", as it were, becomes clear.

That is to say, all things are clouded until the mirror is washed?
 
And following that, one can be assured of the prior process one followed? Regarding the authority of the Vedas, teachers, and holy men?
 
That is really what I am asking now, is it not?

Is that where you get the "good evidence for believing it"? From that experience later?
 
Prince_James said:
That is really what I am asking now, is it not?

Is that where you get the "good evidence for believing it"? From that experience later?
Click to expand...

yes, just like a hungry person gets good evidence of the value of eating with each bite (he doesn't need a second opinion)

SB 11.2.42: Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things — these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.
 
So just as we cannot tell if the apple will be sweet or sour, you affirm that we cannot know whether knowledge of God is true until we have perceived God? That we, in essence, take a bite?
 
Prince_James said:
So just as we cannot tell if the apple will be sweet or sour, you affirm that we cannot know whether knowledge of God is true until we have perceived God? That we, in essence, take a bite?
Click to expand...

Does that apply to cocaine? :bugeye: I would know if I sink into it...unless I try it...right?
 
Prince_James said:
Qwerty Mob:

I am only stressing a point of epistemology, that is all.
Click to expand...

Allow me to caution you from stressing such a point, if there's nothing objective to tie it to.

...

PJ, Have you considered the fundamental problem of beliefs? That of "infinite regression"...
 
Prince_James said:
Sarkus:

When you get a chance, check my last post for a reply I made to your former one. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Click to expand...
Sure... If I can find it.... :)

Prince_James said:
Is an effect created by its cause? Or is it simply caused?
Click to expand...
Created / Caused - in this matter they are the same - both are the creation of the end result - i.e. the various individual parts in the specific order / place etc.

PJ said:
However, you seem to agree that we're speaking about causes, not creation ex nihilio. In as much as that is true, then we are in agreement, although we almost got into a scuffle over semantics, it seems.
Click to expand...
Ah - the wonder of semantics. :D

PJ said:
Actually, I contend otherwise. To claim that one can take away even a single part from infinity implies that the prior infinity was either infinity + 1 (as it does not require the prior part in order to be infinite) or that one has created a void, in which case infinity is not infinite, as does not extend infinitely. In either case, you produce an absurdity.

Infinity - 1 may not be sensible, as one cannot be truly one away from the infinite, yet to take away anything from the infinite would be to diminish it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think this is you not fully understanding the concept of Infinity.

It is a concept - not a number - of that I'm sure you're happy with.
So to speak of "Infinity +/- 1" is invalid / incorrect / insensible(?).

To remove one from an infinite number would still leave an infinite number.
To remove every-other-one from an infinite pile would result in two infinite piles.
There is no limit to infinity - so to remove one CAN NOT diminish the whole - as to do so puts a limit on the whole.

It is not to say that each constituent part does not have value - but removing one does not diminish the whole.


I think the thread has moved on since this, though.
 
I think the thread has moved on since this, though.
Click to expand...

Yes it has. 33 pages and yet Lg has not come up with a definition of what a god is, one that every individual would agree on. :rolleyes:
 
No surprise there, since any definition would either make one exception for the "god of monotheism"-- or demolish it.
 
lightgigantic said:
Similarly if we were talking about why an atheist is not capable of perceiving the nature of god, and if an atheist was prepared to undergo the tutelage of a saintly person, we would no longer be discussing the issues of an atheist.
Click to expand...
ah but we would'nt because an atheist would not accept the information from this so called saintly(worthy of adoration?)person, unless he had some evidence to show he was worthy, which he does'nt, but a physicist does.
 
Godless said:
Yes it has. 33 pages and yet Lg has not come up with a definition of what a god is, one that every individual would agree on. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Because as soon as you give a god any form, you subject it to reason, and the gods never stand up to reason.

That is why theists are unwilling to say anything about their god, it opens them to ridicule, and their god to disproof. Which leaves them worshiping a thing about which they can say nothing. It could be an evil thing hellbent on torture and destruction, and they worship it anyway.

A huge problem with any concept of a deity is that nothing can have infinite negative states. Nothing can have been eternal heading back into the past. At some point there must have been complete stasis. This does not allow any room for any of the known conceptualizations of any gods. They simply can't exist without having a finite past.

So it really doesn't matter what definition is given for a god in this thread, since they won't include this feature, the rest is moot.
 
geeser said:
ah but we would'nt because an atheist would not accept the information from this so called saintly(worthy of adoration?)person, unless he had some evidence to show he was worthy, which he does'nt, but a physicist does.
Click to expand...


The real question is would you accept something to be true which appears to your mind as self-evidently true?

Yes, you would. You do it all the time.
 
grover said:
The real question is would you accept something to be true which appears to your mind as self-evidently true?
Click to expand...
and what prey tell is accepted as self evident, I'll tell you, everything we know we gained from either education or real experiences. it only requires no proof or explanation, because it has been learnt or experienced in the real world, it would'nt, or should I say should'nt for the religious here, be accepted as self-evident, if it is purely subjective.
self-evident things are wholly objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top