Defining what is God.

[lightgigantic]

Prince James:

“
the moment you have space i sthe moment you have god permeating it - just like the moment you have smoke follows themoment you have fire
”
Then God was not infinite before, because he did not occupy something which is entirely new.

Actually i was illustrating the relationship between cause and effect - contingency can still exist amongst eternal objects, since despite smoke being an eternal phenomena in the presenceof an eternal fire, at no time does it become indpendent from the fire

“
In essence, yes, although in the vedas there are distinctions between the supreme personality of godhead and plenary portions of the supreme personality of godhead (for instance the expansion of god that creates this entire material creation is mentioned as a plenary portion of a plenary portion of a plenary portion of a plenary portion of the supreme personality of godhead)
”
Then consider this: If God is space, then space needn't be considered as superior to God, even if it shares in eternity. It is only in the false distinction betwixt the twain that demands we conceive of space as superior to God in this system. In essence, so long as you connect God to it, one needn't affirm the absurdity that space would be superior to God.

two points

1. if god is space you run into severe philosophical difficulties in explaining the nature of variety
2. The strict definition of god is that nothing can be greater or equal than him

“
who said he is limited? Is an elephant any smaller because it is standing in 50cm of water?
”
Did not Earthly Krishna have finite dimensions?

Yes and no (actually there are many questions in spiritual life that warrant such an answer)
He was ceratinly visible to people, but there are examples, such as when he was appearing as a child, and it was impossible to tie a piece of string around him (no matter how many threads they tied together it was always 3 fingers too short - after all, they were trying to use the physical elements of the universe to encompass somethign gretaer than the universe), until he finally conceeded to being tied by them (illustrates how god is conquered only by his devotees)

When he was holding the reigns to Arjuna's horse, for instance? Or standing on the Earth and preaching to him about God?

There is a word for god, "ananta (unlimted) rupa (form)".
Rupa literally means where things end (in other words we get our concepetion of form in this world by where an object physically ends) - tagged together with ananta, it indicates that although god has a rupa, they actually don't have an end (therefore god can be smaller than the smallest, greater than the greatest etc)

“
Therefore the form of Krishna is described as transcendental - in other words there is no evidence to state that he is limited by appearing in this world (actually he descends with his associates, paraphernalia and even abode)
”
To have four limbs is to be limited in and of itself.

You probably judge by your experience with limbs - there are specific claims about the nature of god's personal body

BS 5.32: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

Actually i was illustrating the relationship between cause and effect - contingency can still exist amongst eternal objects, since despite smoke being an eternal phenomena in the presenceof an eternal fire, at no time does it become indpendent from the fire

One must ask whether it is any longer contingent if the flame is held to be itself eternal. If the smoke could never cease owing to the flame's eternity, then it is hard to claim it is anything but necessary.

if god is space you run into severe philosophical difficulties in explaining the nature of variety

Indeed. But I have a simplistic variation of my solution: Infinite space requires an infinite amount of parts. Hence, variety exists in space because of this need for an infinite amount of parts.

Also note my dialectical alternative of somethingness/nothingness, although we remain locked against one another as to the validity of that.

He was ceratinly visible to people, but there are examples, such as when he was appearing as a child, and it was impossible to tie a piece of string around him (no matter how many threads they tied together it was always 3 fingers too short - after all, they were trying to use the physical elements of the universe to encompass somethign gretaer than the universe), until he finally conceeded to being tied by them (illustrates how god is conquered only by his devotees)

Even so, you will admit in a normal sense that earthly Krishna was not as "God like" as his universal form, yes?

There is a word for god, "ananta (unlimted) rupa (form)".
Rupa literally means where things end (in other words we get our concepetion of form in this world by where an object physically ends) - tagged together with ananta, it indicates that although god has a rupa, they actually don't have an end (therefore god can be smaller than the smallest, greater than the greatest etc)

Considering God would have to be by definition existent at the smallest and at the largest, this is reasonable.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

“
Actually i was illustrating the relationship between cause and effect - contingency can still exist amongst eternal objects, since despite smoke being an eternal phenomena in the presenceof an eternal fire, at no time does it become indpendent from the fire
”
One must ask whether it is any longer contingent if the flame is held to be itself eternal. If the smoke could never cease owing to the flame's eternity, then it is hard to claim it is anything but necessary.

It is contingent - it illustrates the relationship between cause and effect - its an important principle for distinguishing between god and godhead

“
if god is space you run into severe philosophical difficulties in explaining the nature of variety
”
Indeed. But I have a simplistic variation of my solution: Infinite space requires an infinite amount of parts. Hence, variety exists in space because of this need for an infinite amount of parts.

space does not require parts- if the inanimate infinite presence of space is the absolute, its not clear where the consciousness of thinking "What is 10 metres ahead" etc, or the ability to discern its parts, came from

“
He was ceratinly visible to people, but there are examples, such as when he was appearing as a child, and it was impossible to tie a piece of string around him (no matter how many threads they tied together it was always 3 fingers too short - after all, they were trying to use the physical elements of the universe to encompass somethign gretaer than the universe), until he finally conceeded to being tied by them (illustrates how god is conquered only by his devotees)
”
Even so, you will admit in a normal sense that earthly Krishna was not as "God like" as his universal form, yes?

God, unlike a person possessed of earthly power, is so powerful that he has no attachment to it, since there is no risk of him losing his power - there are different concepts of god - aisvarya (opulence) and madhurya (sweetness - in the sense of intimacy etc - the example is there that a high court judge displays a mood of aisvarya in his law courts but displays a mood of madhurya with his grandchildren (if he bangs his judicial hammer in the romper room it doesn't bear any effect like the court room, even though it may be the same person with the same hammer) - so madhurya is deemed as superior to aisvarya, and it is fo rthis purpose that Krishna is deemed as superior to the universal form/brahman

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.

 

[swivel]

The Ontological Argument doesn't work. For any god you can conceive of, I can postulate the god that made your god. And so on, ad infinitum.

The Ontological Argument has been so dismantled by so many philosophers that merely bringing it up will release chuckles in polite company.



As for a definition of what god is - The personification of all the things that we do not yet know.



Edit: The weird thing about the ontological argument, when you think about it, is that it presumes the mere thinking of something can somehow make it a reality. How in the world did so many bright people make this jump?

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

It is contingent - it illustrates the relationship between cause and effect - its an important principle for distinguishing between god and godhead

Can you imagine a shapeless thing?

space does not require parts- if the inanimate infinite presence of space is the absolute, its not clear where the consciousness of thinking "What is 10 metres ahead" etc, or the ability to discern its parts, came from

So if you have a length of ten metres, you do not have ten distinct metres within it? And 10,000 centimetres? And 100,000 mm?

Also, if you have an infinite amount of numbers, do you not have 1, 2, 13131, 1931319...?

so madhurya is deemed as superior to aisvarya, and it is fo rthis purpose that Krishna is deemed as superior to the universal form/brahman

Yet it cannot be heled to be physically superior. Again: Limitation. In fact, one could say this is not God at all, but some sort of manifestation alone. For nothing which is infinite could be made finite.

 

[lightgigantic]

swivel

The Ontological Argument doesn't work. For any god you can conceive of, I can postulate the god that made your god. And so on, ad infinitum.

The Ontological Argument has been so dismantled by so many philosophers that merely bringing it up will release chuckles in polite company.

Actually it wasn't about the ontological argument - it was about the defintion of god being that person whom one cannot conceive of anything being greater - as for smirking philosophers it tends to be cyclic - like I can't understand how Hume made his way into intelligent circles - but anyway thats a whole seperate thread ......

As for a definition of what god is - The personification of all the things that we do not yet know.

I can conceive of a god who is the source of all things known and unknown

Edit: The weird thing about the ontological argument, when you think about it, is that it presumes the mere thinking of something can somehow make it a reality. How in the world did so many bright people make this jump?

once again, thi s is not about the ontological argument

 

[spidergoat]

But what is it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

“
It is contingent - it illustrates the relationship between cause and effect - its an important principle for distinguishing between god and godhead
”
Can you imagine a shapeless thing?

What to speak of imagining, the very act of perception is contingent on a shapeless thing - sunlight

“
space does not require parts- if the inanimate infinite presence of space is the absolute, its not clear where the consciousness of thinking "What is 10 metres ahead" etc, or the ability to discern its parts, came from
”
So if you have a length of ten metres, you do not have ten distinct metres within it? And 10,000 centimetres? And 100,000 mm?

My point was that this metonymic reasoning does not come from space, it comes from the perception of space - and the very problem of determining absolute space as the ultimate entity of eternity/infinity etc is that there is no clear understanding how metonymic perception evolved or is contingent on something which is uniform and bereft of consciousness

Also, if you have an infinite amount of numbers, do you not have 1, 2, 13131, 1931319...?

yes, but you don't have the ability to distinguish between 1, 2, 13131 etc, since that is dependant on metonymic consciousness

“
so madhurya is deemed as superior to aisvarya, and it is fo rthis purpose that Krishna is deemed as superior to the universal form/brahman
”
Yet it cannot be heled to be physically superior.

why not? Especially when there are numerous scriptural quotes providing examples and reasons to the contrary (omnipotence, omniscience etc)

Again: Limitation. In fact, one could say this is not God at all, but some sort of manifestation alone. For nothing which is infinite could be made finite.

First you have to establish that Krishna is finite - there is one instance where a sage visits krishna in 16 000 palaces with 16 000 different wives. The sage determines that there are in fact 16 000 different krishnas and that this is not so amazing since there is no reason why god should be limited to 16 000 (also there is the earlier incident with the attempt to tie him up with string as a child - there are numerous incidents that establsh the unlimited capacity of krishna.

 

[lightgigantic]

But what is it?

at the moment we are defining qualities - like for instance if you ask what is chilli powder I could say it is hot, it is red, it is painful to have in your eyes etc etc

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

What to speak of imagining, the very act of perception is contingent on a shapeless thing - sunlight

Sunlight certainly has shape. It has length and its wavelength determines its colour (or lack thereof).

My point was that this metonymic reasoning does not come from space, it comes from the perception of space - and the very problem of determining absolute space as the ultimate entity of eternity/infinity etc is that there is no clear understanding how metonymic perception evolved or is contingent on something which is uniform and bereft of consciousness

Actually, I have an argument for nonuniformity, also. Would you care to see it?

Moreover, certainly space itself has distance, even if unmarked. That is to say, we needn't speak of perception - simply the quality of space. Two objects suspended one metre apart, need not be considered to be one metre apart, but simply "apart". Moreover, one could not speak about something that was purely infinite without also fininte parts to it. One could not speak of an infinity that is "just infinity". To say otherwise is rather like a "muffin-top" conception of infinity.

yes, but you don't have the ability to distinguish between 1, 2, 13131 etc, since that is dependant on metonymic consciousness

One certainly requires a consciousness to speak of such things, yes.

why not? Especially when there are numerous scriptural quotes providing examples and reasons to the contrary (omnipotence, omniscience etc)

One could not determine nor prove omnipotence and omniscience from such a limited being. Indeed, these qualities have no rational foundation in any limited being.

First you have to establish that Krishna is finite - there is one instance where a sage visits krishna in 16 000 palaces with 16 000 different wives. The sage determines that there are in fact 16 000 different krishnas and that this is not so amazing since there is no reason why god should be limited to 16 000 (also there is the earlier incident with the attempt to tie him up with string as a child - there are numerous incidents that establsh the unlimited capacity of krishna.

That there can be a Krishna with a different wife speaks of limitation inherent in the conception.

 

[mackmack]

"I recall some christian scholar (anyone who can remember their name let me know - something like "Ansell") who said something to the effect that the definition of god is "That enitity to whom no other entity can be be conceived of as greater.""

the chicken or the egg question again. there is no point in arguing about god because.
humanity was created by god
gods god created god
gods gods god created gods god

i mean this goes on and on. eternal life means you reached the last god. reaching the last god would mean you found the stopping point -- which in science is and isn't possible. for example, can anyone tell me the last number in the number system. the answer is "infinite". but what is that number?

and one more thing, there are 1,375 religions claiming to be god. there is only one god. that means 1,374 religions are garanteed to be false. there is a very slim chance that 1 out of the 1,375 major religions is god.

 

[(Q)]

I can conceive of a god who is the source of all things known and unknown

So what? I can conceive a god far more powerful than yours, hence the answer is not "what" god can be conceived, but instead, by "whom?"

 

[lightgigantic]

"I recall some christian scholar (anyone who can remember their name let me know - something like "Ansell") who said something to the effect that the definition of god is "That enitity to whom no other entity can be be conceived of as greater.""

the chicken or the egg question again. there is no point in arguing about god because.
humanity was created by god
gods god created god
gods gods god created gods god

i mean this goes on and on. eternal life means you reached the last god. reaching the last god would mean you found the stopping point -- which in science is and isn't possible. for example, can anyone tell me the last number in the number system. the answer is "infinite". but what is that number?

and one more thing, there are 1,375 religions claiming to be god. there is only one god. that means 1,374 religions are garanteed to be false. there is a very slim chance that 1 out of the 1,375 major religions is god.

interesting but often well traversed tacts taken in other threads - feel free to make a thread or two about the points you raised - the purpose of this thread however is to look at definitions of god (rather than the ontological argument)

So what? I can conceive a god far more powerful than yours, hence the answer is not "what" god can be conceived, but instead, by "whom?"

as far as this thread is concerned, who doesn't matter - it stands to reason that a god that is the source of everything known is inferior to a god that is the source of everything known and unknown - so as it stands at the moment, it appears that a quality of god, working with the idea of a defintion outlined in the OP, is that he is the source of everything known and unknown (unless you can offer a greater conception)

 

[KennyJC]

as far as this thread is concerned, who doesn't matter - it stands to reason that a god that is the source of everything known is inferior to a god that is the source of everything known and unknown - so as it stands at the moment, it appears that a quality of god, working with the idea of a defintion outlined in the OP, is that he is the source of everything known and unknown (unless you can offer a greater conception)

Really vague... If god is the cause of everything known and unknown, but is an entirely natural process with no intelligent planning, then god is meaningless. God is only relevant if there was any conscious creation to the universe.

 

[Ian25.04.80]

God

God the Jehovah is the creator of all things

 

[(Q)]

as far as this thread is concerned, who doesn't matter - it stands to reason that a god that is the source of everything known is inferior to a god that is the source of everything known and unknown - so as it stands at the moment, it appears that a quality of god, working with the idea of a defintion outlined in the OP, is that he is the source of everything known and unknown (unless you can offer a greater conception)

I already did offer it, and the definition is greater than yours as is the god conceived. What really doesn't matter is that you don't accept it.

 

[SkinWalker]

God the Jehovah is the creator of all things

No. You're misguided and wrong. It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pbuh) that it the creator of all things.

All Praise the Ancient of Marinara.

 

[Sarkus]

he is the source of everything known and unknown (unless you can offer a greater conception)

So this conception of god created itself (logical implication).

What was there before this god created itself?

Who created that?

Why do you accept / conceive that a god can create itself from zip, where zip existed before?

Is this not merely what others claim to be a characteristic of our universe?

And this makes god more likely.... why?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

God the Jehovah is the creator of all things

*************
M*W: And you know this for a fact? Do you also know that the bible is not accurate? Do you also know that the bible was written in a time long before we had intellectual understanding? Do you also know that the bible is a literary work and not a spiritual work? If you do not know this, why are you using the bible as a reference?

 

[lightgigantic]

Really vague... If god is the cause of everything known and unknown, but is an entirely natural process with no intelligent planning, then god is meaningless. God is only relevant if there was any conscious creation to the universe.

I can conceive of a god that is conscious and the cause of all animate and inanimate manifestations

I already did offer it, and the definition is greater than yours as is the god conceived. What really doesn't matter is that you don't accept it.

Can't understand what your point was/is

So this conception of god created itself (logical implication).

I can conceive of a god that is eternal

What was there before this god created itself?[/QUOTE
I can conceive of a god that is the cause of the time factor itself

Who created that?

I can conceive of a god that is the cause of all causes

Why do you accept / conceive that a god can create itself from zip, where zip existed before?

I can conceive of a god that makes the notion of "zip" ever existing a fantasy

Is this not merely what others claim to be a characteristic of our universe?

I can conceive of a god who, unlike our current empiric understandings of the universe, is completely familiar with all aspects great and small of the cosmic manifestation as it goes through seasons of rejuvenation and annihilation

And this makes god more likely.... why?

Actually inthis read we are running with what is outlined in the OP - defining god as having qualities that no one can conceive of as being greater or equal to