God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[AAF]

Prince_James: “ Can it truly be said that anything divided ad infinitum would be accorded to nothingness and not simply the "infinitely small"? Though we could never reach the infinitely small by definition that its infinite status would make it impossible to be reached, it must nonetheless be a the ultimate end, as every number - or every portion of space - is infinitely divisible and never would reach zero (nothingness) in the process. As a number's quotient cannot be zero if that number is divided by another number, one could never reach zero through the process of division………….”.

Re: That is one way of analyzing it. It’s also possible to use the idea of the most infinitely small (i.e. nothingness) to definite the infinitely small. Accordingly, the infinitely small, in this case, is not one specific entity, but an attribute of an infinite number of entities whose relative degree of it increases progressively by approaching the limit of the series. Can the process of dividing ad infinitum reach the ultimate limit of the series? Yes! But only if we assume the process of division is at once infinite and needs no time at all to be carried out single step by single step. Using an infinite process to reach the limit and to close an infinite series of elements is precisely the well-known ‘mental jump’ mentioned earlier. This procedure is very important for identifying the limits. But every precaution should be taken against the temptation of concluding falsely that just because this infinite series has a beginning and a limit, then the infinitely smallest of its elements must be lurking somewhere between them. That is because such a conclusion is contradictory from the start and logically equivalent to asserting that the one and the same series of elements is both infinite and non-infinite at the same time! In brief, a limit of an infinite series must not become a member of it under any circumstances.



Prince_James: “…Whereas I do agree that if we take this as true that it would not lose its positionary aspect, I must disagree with you on one point, namely, that it could so lose its extension in space. But this also hinges upon my objection to the conception of a dimension not united with the two others. For instance, consider a truly two dimensional square suspended in three dimensional space. Now, according to the viewpoint that there can exists two dimensions apart from a third, the square has literally no notion of "depth". That is to say, it has no extension in the third dimension, so it is literally flat. But I ask, if then looked at on the corner, would not it have no existence? Or even if one looks at it so that the square is viewed from above and its flatness ought to be seen, I ask whether this would even be possible? For if it has no depth, how does it retain this flatness? For there would be nothing to separate it from the nothingness above and beneath it. That is to say, such an square could not exist. The only way to satisfy its existence as a "virtually two dimensional square" would be to postulate the existence of an infinitely small existence in the third, to allow for the least amount of depth possible. Or to bring it back to our philosophic discussion, I postulate that the ultimate point of space must be infinitely small in all dimensions, not lacking in any, and thus retains both space and position, rather than simply position………..”.

Re: As explained earlier, the abstract geometrical point can be obtained by supposing the process of division is infinite as a given. As for the square above, it would be as you’ve described, if and only if it was made of matter of some sort. But if it’s truly Euclidean and constructed mentally upon the abstract void, then it needs no depth and the considerations above do not apply. That is because the whole Euclidean geometry is abstract and all its basic entities are idealized; and hence there should be no difficulty in building squares and the like using idealized right angles and segments of abstract lines.


Prince_James: “…As a beginning question: What sort of contradictions and paradoxes do you propose come about when you consider infinity in a numerical sense? That is to say, that such things as half of infinity cannot be defined, that every number is equal in distance to the end of infinity? For if we investigate the concept of infinity, we find that many of these concepts, which at first glance, seem absurd, are in fact rather reasonable. That half of infinity cannot be defined points to the fact that infinity cannot be divisible by virtue of having no boundary and that boundary is the source of all divisibility in a true sense, whereas 1 and 1010234182108 being equal to the end of infinity demonstrates, once again, this same point - that infinity is always an infinite distance from the finite. That being said, the infinite must indeed be composed of an infinite series of finite parts, so that numbers cannot end is very appropriate and also points to the fact that finite space can always be compared to finite space regardless of the size of one side or another, that is to say, 1132431231 and 023108320820381038108861912379122312987319871561 can interact regardless of the fact that the latter number is astronomically higher than the first. That all finite things would also equal finite things, but the sum of all finite things would be infinite, is also here found………..”.

Re: I would say that infinity presents no real problems in mathematics, because mathematicians over the centuries have developed very effective methods and procedures for identifying contradictions and paradoxes in their subject and for dealing with them explicitly and properly. The real trouble with infinity is in philosophy, cosmology, and theology. Here, the concept of infinity is poorly defined and vague; and it means different things for different people. And to answer your question, the frequent mistake in this regard is to start a discussion by treating the Universe, for instance, as something genuinely infinite; but then half way during the discussion, the Universe becomes a closed totality which is treated implicitly and without pointing that out as if it were finite and limited and all of its element, including the limits, are present and real and actual! In short, the notorious ‘mental jump’ has been made, but implicitly and without the necessary precautions. And so treating the Universe as both infinite & non-infinite at the same time is the most frequent contradiction in this field.



Prince_James: “…. Let me give a better description of what I mean "things which can have a fullest sense ".Now there seems to me two things. Things which cannot have a perfection as they have no logically greatest point, and things which can because they do. An example of the former would be smell. What is "the perfect smell"? Or for that matter, "the perfect colour"? And even if these two absurdities existed - which they do not - would they be necessary? But necessity is needed for perfection, otherwise you are right, it is arbitrary, and clearly nothing in this existence can be arbitrary if it is a perfection……..”.

Re: I would like to disagree with you, here, and say yes, there is a perfect smell! And that perfect smell is the ideal perfume. The absolutely perfect perfume is, of course, an ideal that can never be actualized. Nevertheless, it’s the limit that the perfume manufacturers must set their eyes on it, if they want to improve their actual perfumes year, after year, after year. Without this perfect ideal before their eyes, those industrialists will go sluggish at first, then stagnant, and finally will start to regress and go backwards. Ideals are a driving force of fundamental importance, even though they are as far as infinity. I agree with the rest of your comments.

 

[Prince_James]

AAF:

"Re: That is one way of analyzing it. It’s also possible to use the idea of the most infinitely small (i.e. nothingness) to definite the infinitely small."

Can we accord nothingness to the status of "most infinitely small", if it has no concept of size? Is it sensible to say "what is smaller than the infinitely small is nothing"? That which has no dimension, by definition, can surely not be regulated to such, no?

"Accordingly, the infinitely small, in this case, is not one specific entity, but an attribute of an infinite number of entities whose relative degree of it increases progressively by approaching the limit of the series. Can the process of dividing ad infinitum reach the ultimate limit of the series? Yes! But only if we assume the process of division is at once infinite and needs no time at all to be carried out single step by single step. Using an infinite process to reach the limit and to close an infinite series of elements is precisely the well-known ‘mental jump’ mentioned earlier."

So in essence: The infinitely small is to be envisioned as the property that an infinite series of things reaches but which never encapsulates? Also, would the analytic nature of figuring out that an infinite series of divison which necessitate a quotient of the infinitely small, be truly considered a process of infinite and instantneous divison? For it seems to me that we are drawing a logically sound and truthful conclusion, but by virtue of not doing the process of division itself, not actually engaging in what you said.

"This procedure is very important for identifying the limits. But every precaution should be taken against the temptation of concluding falsely that just because this infinite series has a beginning and a limit, then the infinitely smallest of its elements must be lurking somewhere between them. That is because such a conclusion is contradictory from the start and logically equivalent to asserting that the one and the same series of elements is both infinite and non-infinite at the same time! In brief, a limit of an infinite series must not become a member of it under any circumstances."

In that the infinitely small, if it was "lurking in the series" could not be part of an infinite series, yes? For if an infinite series has an end, then it is not an infinite series!

"Re: As explained earlier, the abstract geometrical point can be obtained by supposing the process of division is infinite as a given. As for the square above, it would be as you’ve described, if and only if it was made of matter of some sort. But if it’s truly Euclidean and constructed mentally upon the abstract void, then it needs no depth and the considerations above do not apply. That is because the whole Euclidean geometry is abstract and all its basic entities are idealized; and hence there should be no difficulty in building squares and the like using idealized right angles and segments of abstract lines."

I was actually speaking of applied Euclidean geometry, or rather, the fallacy of postulating that Euclidean principles - which assume an axiom of the possibility of that which is physically impossible - hold to space which could not work under their presumptions. Moreover, I critique such an abstracted system on the foundation that what it claims cannot be thought of. A two dimensional square cannot be envisioned with the mind's eye and be an object of thought, for even when we think, we think in three dimensions. And it is only in a very relative sense - such as working on flat surfaces - that we can make any sense of the system.

"Re: I would say that infinity presents no real problems in mathematics, because mathematicians over the centuries have developed very effective methods and procedures for identifying contradictions and paradoxes in their subject and for dealing with them explicitly and properly. The real trouble with infinity is in philosophy, cosmology, and theology. Here, the concept of infinity is poorly defined and vague; and it means different things for different people. And to answer your question, the frequent mistake in this regard is to start a discussion by treating the Universe, for instance, as something genuinely infinite; but then half way during the discussion, the Universe becomes a closed totality which is treated implicitly and without pointing that out as if it were finite and limited and all of its element, including the limits, are present and real and actual! In short, the notorious ‘mental jump’ has been made, but implicitly and without the necessary precautions. And so treating the Universe as both infinite & non-infinite at the same time is the most frequent contradiction in this field. "

You are correct. Philosophy has a long tradition of poorly conceiving infinity, specifically when made into the scullery maid (as "hand maiden" is far too dignified for what religion attempted to do to her) of religious faith and subject to her mandates.

But would you go so far as to argue that infinity does not demand an actual existence as revealed to us through proper philosophical thought on the matter? For I would indeed argue that an infinity in an actual, real sense, is as necessary as the finite which we see around us, based on an argument I believe I have all ready presented, viz. the impossibility for there to be nothing to surround something, and therefore, the continuation of somethingness forever. Of course, the other postulations I have put forth I also consider proof of the infinity of existence and do not hold that we can speak of existence as a whole as limited, only a part.

In essence, whereas I recognize that philosophy has had a long tradition of holding to absurdities through improper method, I postulate that certain concepts regarding infinity, as we have discussed, are actual and not ideal. That is to say, they are actually present in existence, and not to be found simply as a result of the conclusions of a system. I further see this as the only way to rationally conceive of a metaphysical system that accounts for such things as the necessity of existence and which gives a rational account of all which is.

"Re: I would like to disagree with you, here, and say yes, there is a perfect smell! And that perfect smell is the ideal perfume. The absolutely perfect perfume is, of course, an ideal that can never be actualized. Nevertheless, it’s the limit that the perfume manufacturers must set their eyes on it, if they want to improve their actual perfumes year, after year, after year. Without this perfect ideal before their eyes, those industrialists will go sluggish at first, then stagnant, and finally will start to regress and go backwards. Ideals are a driving force of fundamental importance, even though they are as far as infinity. I agree with the rest of your comments. "

An interesting conception of the perfect smell, but perhaps you would elaborate on it for me? Now, if by "perfect smell", do you not mean "the smell that the most people would find pleasing and want to be around"? Or do you mean an idealized smell which is the fullest expression of the notion of smell? For in the case of the former, I do agree that this is what perfume manufacturers are seeking to produce, but in the case of the latter, I refute the notion on the foundation that it makes no sense. For what would this absurdity entail? There are different types of smells, for instance, which something cannot be at the same time, such as foul or sweet, so would this fullest expression have to hold both at the same time with infinite potency? And how could such a thing have infinite potency of smell? And then to last infinitely beyond that?

 

[lightgigantic]

**** What a thesis – I can’t promise I have the time to go through all this

"Pantheism is only half teh picture just like the sunshine is not the full picture of the sun (it also includes the sun globe as the source of the sun) - the difference between the consciousness of the living entity and the consciousness of god is that the living entities consciousness is limited to its body and the consciousness of god pervades the entire manifestation"

Yes in order for God to be infinite, must not there be nothing but him? And if there is nothing but him, again, do we not find that God cannot truly be distinct from anything whatsoever?

***** This is god’s perspective – there is nothing distinct for him since he is not subject to illusion – again it slike the sun and the sunshine – sunshine emanates from the sun but it is not the sun – in the same way everything emanates from god but everything is not god - the general principle is that one thing is the cause and the other is the effect

But you claim that, in essence, both are made of the same substance, but differ in quantity and in that we are limited to bodies, whereas God is not? How is God not and why are we limited by bodies?

***** God is the cause of everything and we are not – just like a drop of sea water and the ocean share the same quality but not quantity

"Charactersed by independence - a microphone stand cannot see to its own benefit because it has no consciousness"

What does independence entail?

***** The ability to make decisions – it is a characteristic of sentience distinct from machines performing functions

"It is given options - there is adistinction between the freedoms offerred by the laws of karma - hence th eliving entity is rewarded or punished in material life by being awared a higher or lower body according to how they exhibit their free will - this is particularly pertinent to humans, hence human society is goverened by laws whereas animals act according to their natures - in other words animal life does not award many options of free will that amount to anything distinct"

And you claim that in being given options, that a free choice can be made?

***** The ability to make decisions requires options

"Well conscious things certainly can do more things than dull matter"

They can do more things, yes, but how does this make them free?

***** Matter does nothing because it has no free will

"Matter is inert - if matter appears to moving it is only due to consciousness or forces that are directed by consciousness"

The wind is not moved by consciousness. How can it then be in motion and move others?

**** How do you know that wind is not moved by consciousness? It may not be moved by yours or mine – at the very least there is still a bit of scientific work to be done in the field of meteorology to determine the exact cause of wind (otherwise why is it not uncommon for weather predictions to be inaccurate) so you cannot make the authoritative statement what causes the wind because science cannot adequately answer that (sure they may have plenty of theories though)

"I am not sure what you are asking here - I mean it seems pretty straight forward - just compare a dead person to a living person - if the difference is not consciousness what is it?"

But this would actually imply that consciousness cannot exist apart from matter, for once the matter in question degrades, consciousness ceases to be. In essece, with the death of the body, so too comes the death of the mind.

***** Again the mind is a subtle substance. Materially what is the difference between a dead body and a living one?

"Its kind of like a person wearing blue glasses asking why everything appears blue - "

So consciousness does not manifest only in matter? How do you know? Where do you find it?

******If a person is conditioned they cannot see it just as a person wearing blue glasses cannot see anything but blue – there is however the ability to arrive at such a conclusion at least theoretically since even the manifested existence suggests the existence of an unmanifested one, just as shadow suggests a real existence

"But I can take a bundle of sticks and build a bridge - can you take a bundle of matter and invest it with consciousness (outside of reproduction which is an operational ability living entities possess as opposed to a creational ability)"

Presumably, yes. In a testtube, with sufficient time and effort, one could painstakingly create a cell out of atoms, and if all was correct, one would see it squiggle to life.

*****If it is so presumable why hasn’t it been done? All creations of life require that one work with life and not matter

"But its easy to see th erelation between a bundle of sticks and a wooden bridge - its not so straight forward with consciousness and matter"

It is when you take into consideration, for instance, that when that relation is disruptive - through injury or through surgery to the brain - the consciousness is impacted. Just as if the bridge's supports are altered, so too would its capacity to hold under certain stresses.
Yet you will agree that no bridge is found in any individual piece of wood that constructs it?

**** The point is that you can take a bundle of sticks and create a bridge but you cannot take a bunch of atomical components and create life. No matter how complex matter may be, it cannot manifest consciousness


"This brings us to the position that there is a third party, namely god - god has two main catergories of energies that are seperated from him - the external (material) energy and spiritual (conscious) energy. IN other words there is dull matter, there is the living entity and there is dull matter. The living entity is marginal, inotherwords it is sometimes taking shelter of matter and sometimes taking shelter of spirit, hence it can be defined as liberated or conditioned according to its consciousness"

What is "the living entity"? I did not ask this before and should.

*****Another separated energy of god, distinct from matter because it has consciousness characterized by free will

And wait wait wait, you said God was consciousness. Now you said that consciousness is distinct from God? That God can be separate from it?

*****God is conscious – and he has two energies – an illusory one (for the benefit of the living entities to express free will) and a conscious one (the living entities)

And you did not explain: How can the non-conscious arise from the conscious? For surely you are not saying that absolute consciousness has non-consciousness mixed with it, yes?

***** Even fire has three energies, namely heat, light and smoke

"Unless he is also interacting with other conscious entities, namely living entities on the liberated platform"

Such thoughts of theirs are also all ready known to him and he cannot react because he all ready knows his own response (or lack thereof). He cannot think of a response, nor can he be a responder.

*****A parent gives there child $10 to buy them something for the parents birthday and even if they know what the gift is they still appreciate it because it is an act of love -

"The "other" are conditioned living entities - of course they are still "his" but he provides the medium of illusion (matter) so that they can work through their desires - in other word sif he gives free will he must give th eopportunity for illusion and mistakes otherwise it wouldn't be free will"

How is matter illusionary? And how could he even know they are distinct, if he in fact is present everywhere?

***** They are distinct according to consciousness – for a liberated person there is no illusion – matter is illusory in the sense that it is temporary and has no stable platform

You also claim that God is free. Can God be tricked by illusion or make a mistake?

****Not unless he agrees to it

"The difference between conditional life and liberated existence is that we are born in to ignorance - in otherwords our processes of epistemology don't bear anything on the liberated platform, what to speak of god's existence. God has no sensory organs? He has the most powerful sensory organs."

He has the most powerful sensory organs? Where are they? Why is there not a huge ear floating in space?

*****Applying material dimensions to a transcendental phenomena often leads to absurd conclusions

"God doesn't desire to be grand because he is completely full of all opulences at all the time - just like a filthy rich person has no desire to earn money because even if they went crazy and purchased anything and everything they would still have tons of money - as for our reciprocation at the moment we are reciprocating with dull matter"

If I am to reciprocate with a person, I must know them, must I not? But if God does not reveal to us himself, and does not reciprocate with what does not reciprocate with him, how do we ever reciprocate with him, if we do not know him?

**** He reveals himself to one who takes a personal interest in him – in otherwords, god, like ourselves, is a creature of reciprocation

And okay, God may not desire to be opulent because he has all opulences, but nonetheless has the habit of the opulent to view themselves as powerful and beyond revealing?

****** Even poverty stricken people feel they have something exclusive in their personal dealings

"Matter doesn't have independence - its like comparing the establishment of a factory with a factory owner - everything moves under his order"

Yet you said that material energy is separate from God. How then is this not independent of him?

***** The factory is also independent of the factory owner – if the factory burns down the factory owner is not physically affected

"By the same argument you could say that a bundle of wool is completely non-different from a woolen jumper"

Only in a relative sense are they different. But no, I do not deny that such relativity is important on a limited sphere. I am not claiming that you and I are one person because we are both (part of) God, but rather that God would both consider us himself, even as we do not distinguish our fingers from ourselves, although to God, I do not imagine he would even have such notion of distinguishment as we do. Again, there is no "other" to God ever, so even to speak of internal "other" seems to be impossible.

"(Mine)Yet he must also be equally in each part, lest he is not present throughout. And even if they are "impersonal attributes", they are still part of God, and thus we are not divorced from him. Moreover, as I am apart of God, he cannot exist apart from me, for I would cease to exist, so too would God lose a part. ”

(Yours) What you are saying is true - it is only through the influence of illusion, an influence that does not affect god, that we can consceive of being seperate from god"

So you are right, we are, in fact, God?

***** I mean you are right in the sense that god sees no essential distinction but a distinction is still there – just like we do in fact see a distinction between ourselves and our fingers – the finger is happy if it places food in the mouth but has no scope for an independent existence of the body (unless it is in illusion of course)

"If we are god how is it that we became overcome by ignorance that we were god - god is not affected by ignorance just as the sun is not affected by darkness"

This presumes that God on an infinite scale has a mind that could be ignorant or not.

******Not ignorant like us – in the sense of totally bewildered by a false concept of life

"The existence of a pure transcendental realm of which this life (which we empirically draw our epistemologies for ontologies) is a reflection. "

Where does this transcendental realm exist? How do you know it exists? What proof can you present of it? Et cetera, et cetera.

****** Indicated by an examination of the cause of this world, beyond theory however it relies on practical application – scripture can be helpful, but if you refuse to apply an authority to scripture it will be a bit difficult to progress – just like it is a bit difficult to progress in medicine if you think that every book written on the subject is bogus

"Logic can only bring you to the point of applying the principles of scripture - it will not grant you the ability to perceive god as you might perceive dull matter because we are dealing with a superiorly conscious living entity - in other words the proof comes from the application of existential conditions of existence - you have to behave in a certain way to understand god just as you have to behave in a certain way to perceive the president face to face (otherwise you won't get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries if you rely on your own potency)"

So God is "above" logic and can only be presented in the way the scriptures say? How then can the scriptures be verified?

***** By application

And if these proofs come from the existential conditons of existence, are not they then independently verifiable and found from the scriptures?

***** The existential conditions are that one acts according to the instructions of scripture

And in fact, are not they even also capable of being found, if they are necessary?

****** It can happen like that but its just like a car designer redesigning the wheel and expecting to be paid for their “research”

"We cannot say what is possible or impossible by our limited senses since they are imperfect - just like the easiest way to find out your father is to ask your mother - the difficult process is to try the telephone directory - in otherwords hearing from a person established in knowledge is how you understand what is possible and imposible - just like if you want to know what is medically possible/impossible you ask a doctor. If you want to know what ios legally possible/impossible you see a lawyer. And the same holds true with spiritual knowledge, hence scripture and saintly persons"

A doctor studies medicine and the original doctor studied the body to make science.

*****Who exactly are these “original doctors”? How many persons can you name that are established in medicine who applied the method of these “original doctors”? If being an original doctor is an absurd idea why is it necessary to apply the same ridiculousness to spiritual discussion?


Similarly, lawyers studied law, and the original lawyer wrote the laws. Yet would not this mean it is the priests who make the religion? And if that is the case, how do they know? For all the other causes you referenced reduce to human effort and, in the case of the objective medicine, independent experimentation.

*****Actually the reality is that all doctors (or at least over 99.9999% of them)apply what they have learnt from an established body of work.

It thus seems that either the priests could have made the religion, or they came upon religion in the natural world through philosophy.

*** That’s why its helpful, whether you are talking about medicine or religion, to know who is properly qualified and who is not, lest you judge the genre by its worst stereotype.

And this is all I have time for today

 

[Prince_James]

"***** This is god’s perspective – there is nothing distinct for him since he is not subject to illusion – again it slike the sun and the sunshine – sunshine emanates from the sun but it is not the sun – in the same way everything emanates from god but everything is not god - the general principle is that one thing is the cause and the other is the effect"

Okay. So in God's perspective we are all unified, but in ours we are not. Yet could God even appreciate the notion of illusion? Be capable of thinking of himself in parts?

"***** God is the cause of everything and we are not – just like a drop of sea water and the ocean share the same quality but not quantity"

Okay. So we are the same as God but not in the same quantity.

"***** The ability to make decisions – it is a characteristic of sentience distinct from machines performing functions"

Okay. I will agree that some material things cannot make decisions. Other material things - life forms - certainly can, though.

"***** The ability to make decisions requires options"

And how are we to be sure that the "supposed options" we had to do other than we did, we ever valid? For clearly, if our character is such and such a way, we shall react in such and such a manner, no?

"***** Matter does nothing because it has no free will"

What of the myriad movements present in matter? The planets, through no will of their own, orbit around the sun, which orbits around the galaxy, which orbits around other, more massive galaxies, in a supercluster of galaxies which likely orbits around a super-cluster of super-clusters of galaxies, which in turn orbits around other....et cetera, et cetera.

Right now, I am drinking lemonade, and as I type the ice is melting and the juice is separating and becoming flat. The sugars are breaking apart and water is collecting on the glass.

"**** How do you know that wind is not moved by consciousness? It may not be moved by yours or mine – at the very least there is still a bit of scientific work to be done in the field of meteorology to determine the exact cause of wind (otherwise why is it not uncommon for weather predictions to be inaccurate) so you cannot make the authoritative statement what causes the wind because science cannot adequately answer that (sure they may have plenty of theories though)"

At the very least, we can create air currents that mimic weather patterns even in our laboratories.

"***** Again the mind is a subtle substance. Materially what is the difference between a dead body and a living one?"

A lack of a heart beat. A degeneration of neural functioning. The process of cellular rot has begun with the ceasation of cellular function. The blood clotting in the veins. The metabolic engine ceasing to produce heat. In essence: Various relations no longer are present, all which account for life in a body.

"******If a person is conditioned they cannot see it just as a person wearing blue glasses cannot see anything but blue – there is however the ability to arrive at such a conclusion at least theoretically since even the manifested existence suggests the existence of an unmanifested one, just as shadow suggests a real existence"

How does this manifest existence suggest an unmanifested one?

"*****If it is so presumable why hasn’t it been done? All creations of life require that one work with life and not matter"

Trillions of atoms are found in even the simplest cells. It is beyond our technological ken for at least another decade, when nanotechnology may allow us the capacity to assemble things on such scales .

Right now we can do parlour tricks and make atoms line up to spell the name of companies and the like.

"**** The point is that you can take a bundle of sticks and create a bridge but you cannot take a bunch of atomical components and create life. No matter how complex matter may be, it cannot manifest consciousness"

Why do you suggest this is so when we have foundm, thus far, consciousness only in living things? It would stand to reason then that there is some connection.

"*****Another separated energy of god, distinct from matter because it has consciousness characterized by free will"

But different from consciousness? Or the same? Or is this essentially the Atman to the Brahman, to borrow Hindu terminology?

"*****God is conscious – and he has two energies – an illusory one (for the benefit of the living entities to express free will) and a conscious one (the living entities) "

Why is it necesary for living beings to express "free-will" through illusion and not through reality?

"***** Even fire has three energies, namely heat, light and smoke "

So then what? Non-consciousness is to consciousness as fire is to heat, with consciousness being the light?

"*****A parent gives there child $10 to buy them something for the parents birthday and even if they know what the gift is they still appreciate it because it is an act of love - "

Yes, but this is quite a bit different then being able to be conscious, when one cannot even formulate the thoughts that inspire the responses which one all ready knows.

"***** They are distinct according to consciousness – for a liberated person there is no illusion – matter is illusory in the sense that it is temporary and has no stable platform"

Is it not then not illusionary, but simply transient? It is rather like saying that summer is illusionary, because its comes and goes.

"****Not unless he agrees to it"

So God can limit himself? How can an infinite being do such?

"*****Applying material dimensions to a transcendental phenomena often leads to absurd conclusions"

When where are his organs of sense?

"**** He reveals himself to one who takes a personal interest in him – in otherwords, god, like ourselves, is a creature of reciprocation"

Yet no one can take a personal interest in that which they do not know exists. I cannot be interested in your views, for instance, until I knew both of you and that you had views.

"****** Even poverty stricken people feel they have something exclusive in their personal dealings"

So God has a feeling of worth, in essence?

"***** The factory is also independent of the factory owner – if the factory burns down the factory owner is not physically affected"

So then matter and God -are- independent?

"***** I mean you are right in the sense that god sees no essential distinction but a distinction is still there – just like we do in fact see a distinction between ourselves and our fingers – the finger is happy if it places food in the mouth but has no scope for an independent existence of the body (unless it is in illusion of course)"

So the distinction is real on a limited sphere, unreal on the absolute. Okay. I can agree with this as it stands.

"******Not ignorant like us – in the sense of totally bewildered by a false concept of life"

Yet even then God would have to have a mind, which I argue he does not.

"****** Indicated by an examination of the cause of this world, beyond theory however it relies on practical application – scripture can be helpful, but if you refuse to apply an authority to scripture it will be a bit difficult to progress – just like it is a bit difficult to progress in medicine if you think that every book written on the subject is bogus"

What of the cause of this world makes you think of consciousness?

"***** By application"

So if the scriptures are applied and find lacking, we invalidate them?

"***** The existential conditions are that one acts according to the instructions of scripture"

Yet even withotu the scriptures, you claim that the universe would testify to everything with them?

"*****Who exactly are these “original doctors”? How many persons can you name that are established in medicine who applied the method of these “original doctors”? If being an original doctor is an absurd idea why is it necessary to apply the same ridiculousness to spiritual discussion?"

Hippocrates and Galen are examples, in the West, of "original doctors". Louis Pasteur was, in part, another. They, with little knowledg to procede them, looked at the body and investigated causes and effects directly, rather than through recourse solely to prior developments.

"*****Actually the reality is that all doctors (or at least over 99.9999% of them)apply what they have learnt from an established body of work."

Yes, but originally doctors had to find the source exterior to any tradition.

"*** That’s why its helpful, whether you are talking about medicine or religion, to know who is properly qualified and who is not, lest you judge the genre by its worst stereotype."

It is indeed, but it would seem that religion has as its foundation human effort, and not divine authorship, just like medicine and the sciences.

"And this is all I have time for today "

Take your time in any replies that are forthcoming.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Is it rational or ridiculous to use the definitions of one situation or branch of knowledge to disprove something that is not related to it? For instance if a person sets out to prove that the composition of space shuttle tiles are faulty by basing their observations and definitions on lego blocks without ever observing actual space shuttle tiles wouldn't you think they are bit strange? The point is that when you set out to prove that monotheism is a contradiction you prove that you don't know what you are talking about when you propose "What created god?" - First off all you have to understand the proper definition of god.Until you do that you don't even begin to demolish anything because you haven't even approached the subject you are trying to demolish………”.

Re: Show me your most proper definition of your God; and I promise you I will show you its biggest contradiction in less than FIVE minutes! But obviously you have none; because God is famous and well known and doesn’t need you to introduce Him formally on this forum. And that is the truth. Who created the Creator? This question is valid and eternal regardless of what type of religion is out there. And this is a FACT.


lightgigantic: “…But that's the point - you have only uncovered the contradictions of polytheism and are trying to cram monotheism in the same category…….”.

Re: That is what you think; and you are wrong. The basic concept of God is the same and very general regardless of the type of religion. Trying to extol your own religion on the expense of other rival religions would not change this fact. Because God is defined as the Creator of the Universe by polytheism and more so by monotheism. The big question is this: Who created the Creator?


lightgigantic: “…No it means what I said - falsely assuming the qualities of one object to belong to another - its called an absence of knowledge, which is a prerequisite for debate. What I am attempting to get you to reconsider is your perception by which you draw up "god" because at the moment you are talking about something that is not even god……….”.

Re: That is just hot air; and you know it! As mentioned earlier, God is well known and famous! And to believe He is not widely known is just plain wrong. God is known as the Creator. But who created Him? That is the question!

lightgigantic: “…"Carefully" seems to mean that if you examine the nature of conditional human life as the means for defining the parameters of god's existence - this is just like examining what a prisoner in jail gets for breakfast in order to determine what the ruler of a nation gets for breakfast. This is not careful examination but foolish examination………”.

Re: Wrong again! Humans have come with the idea of God. And humans must use their logic to examine it. It would be foolish, therefore, to suggest this examination couldn’t and cannot be done even in principle.


lightgigantic: “…Well you expect me to agree with the nonsense that a prisoner lives like a king?….”.

Re: False analogy, once again! Because the prisoner (i.e. the human being) is the one who has come up with the idea of the king (i.e. God) in the first place. And it’s his duty as a rational being to make sure this idea is free of contradictions and absurdities before proceeding with it any further. And this what you have failed to see.


lightgigantic: “…perhaps in your mind, but then you never had an adequate definition to begin your attempts of "demolition" at…….”.

Re: I mean it! So far, you’ve failed to appreciate the importance of examining the logical consistency of proposed ideas before carrying them any further. You have to realize that the concept of God is terribly defective and everything built upon this defective concept is defective as well.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “….If you want to examine conditional human life as the means for examining god it is definitely unreasonable since conditional humans are not god - hardly something you have to have a philosophical debate about ..……..”.

Re: Why do we need to examine the conditions of the human life in this context? Only logic is needed for examining the idea of a higher being as proposed and put forwards by humans. Humans have used their mind to obtain that idea. And humans must use the basic principles of their mind to examine its validity. It’s, therefore, blatantly irrational to even suggest that humans are incapable of examining logically an idea of their own making in the first place.


lightgigantic: “….Well why don't you actually begin with those principles and methods then rather than redefining them midway to suit your own preconceived terms?……. “.

Re: Principles of reason cannot be redefined midway or all the way. They are axiomatic, clear-cut, and very simple right from the start, and cannot be simplified any further. For this reason, your statement does not really make sense; unless, of course, you want to lend me some of the tricky power of a polytheistic God!


lightgigantic: “….But I didn't call that polytheism - I called accepting that the monotheistic principle that time is a byproduct of god is the primary distinction between polytheism and monotheism…….”.

Re: Of course, you didn’t call it that way; but you gave me the power of redefining the rules of logic! And once again, time plays no role in this distinction between those TWO. Only the infinite attributes of the monotheistic God prevent the appearance of lesser gods. Take some of those infinities away; and monotheism will become polytheism in no time at all. That is the real distinction.


lightgigantic: “….Actually its not uncommon to encounter atheistic arguments that matter is eternal principle (which, BTW is also an idea corroborated in scripture) - actually your premise that there is nothing eternal in the material creation is absurd even from an atheistic point of view…..”.

Re: I’m afraid that is just another figment of your imagination! Because, in reality, I didn’t say Creation cannot be eternal! I said, Creation is not possible at all and, therefore, the Cosmos must be eternal. And so you are not really paying attention to what I have said countless times. And that is your fault!


lightgigantic: “….Sarcasm cannot camouflage your affinity”.

That is not a sarcastic remark! That is vey simply the truth.

 

[lightgigantic]

Narrow in your perception of what matter is, and what it is capable of.

I guess then it would be fair for me to say that your definitions of what matter is capable of are highly liberal then

There is no evidence of "consciousness" without matter.
You are claiming there is, or there could be - so the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

There's also no evidence that consciousness is caused by matter - at the very least all examples of life are either conscious or mysterious

First - do not put words into my mouth - you are only setting yourself up with a strawman.
Secondly it is not a question of epistemology it is a matter of definition and then evidence.

well definition and evidence is a type of epistemology don't you think?
And from your above statement in the paragraph above this one, you are infact saying that consciousness independant from matter is not perceivable, to which the next question is "would you expect it to be perceivable to one who doesn't apply the relevant epistemology?"

Without evidence you are stuck in the realm of theory - and without the possibility of evidence you are stuck with an unscientific claim.

Yet there are some so called scientists, yourself included, who advocate that consciousness is a product of matter despite being stuck in the same quandry ... why?

Poor definition of free-will, IMO.
You can build machines that will "see to one's own benefit".

But then that machine is an expansion of your consciousness - in otherwords you become the operator and the machine becomes th e instrument - much like one operates their own body - machines don't operate themselves

Some solar-powered machines seek out light when their fuel supply runs low, or, in the case of "Hyperion" - will tilt its panels toward the sun and plot a course to avoid shadows... HERE.

ditto as above

These are pre-programmed "instincts", the same that a bacteria has - and not what I would call "free-will" at all.

the bacteria is self conscious - albeit on a very inferior level due to the nature of their body - in a way that a machine can never be

I do not, and have not, claimed that ALL "matter is conscious".

Then to get down to brass tacks what is the difference between a dead person and a living one if not consciousness?

I do claim that "consciousness" is merely a word to describe the vastly complex material interactions within our vastly complicated material brain. Out of the complexity arises what we have determined as "consciousness". Without the complexity of these physical interactions within a physical system there will be no consciousness.

How can you say that when the nature of what distincts something alive from dead is completely invisible to your perception? It is very difficult to make absolute statements like that when there are many variables that are not controlled

So your example of the two babies - one alive, one dead - of course there will be a difference in that ONLY ONE HAS THE VAST COMPLEXITY OF MATERIAL INTERACTIONS - and so ONLY ONE IS CONSCIOUS.

But materially they are both the same - they both have a brain, heart, legs etc etc (both are equally materially vast) but one is alive and one is dead- why?

 

[Sarkus]

I guess then it would be fair for me to say that your definitions of what matter is capable of are highly liberal then

No - you just need to improve your understanding of what "matter" is.

There's also no evidence that consciousness is caused by matter - at the very least all examples of life are either conscious or mysterious

Eh?? I never said consciousness is "caused by matter". I said consciousness is a word to describe a material process. And what do you mean by "are either conscious or mysterious"?

But then that machine is an expansion of your consciousness - in otherwords you become the operator and the machine becomes th e instrument - much like one operates their own body - machines don't operate themselves

Once built, some machines can operate entirely ON THEIR OWN - seeking out sunlight that they change to energy to move toward the next bit of sunlight. How is that an expansion of the builder's consciousness? It is an entirely autonomous machine.

Define your use of the word "consciousness".

Are you also saying that children are merely an expansion of the parents' consciousnesses?

the bacteria is self conscious - albeit on a very inferior level due to the nature of their body - in a way that a machine can never be

Once again you make utterly unsubstantiated claims.
HOW is a bacteria self-conscious?
How is a batertia anything more than a biological machine?
Where is your evidence?

Then to get down to brass tacks what is the difference between a dead person and a living one if not consciousness?

Not being a biologist, I couldn't tell you all the differences.
But I think someone else gave you an answer somewhere above.
I would say the two fundamental differences are a lack of electro-chemical reactions in the brain - and a heart that is no longer beating.

But let me ask you - what is the difference between a battery with power and a battery without power?

How can you say that when the nature of what distincts something alive from dead is completely invisible to your perception?

It's NOT invisible to our perception at all - which is why people can be confirmed as DEAD. Otherwise we would only ever be guessing when someone is dead or not.
We can observe directly whether someone is showing signs of life - heartbeat - electro-chemical reactions in the brain etc.
THESE ARE NOT INVISIBLE TO OUR PERCEPTION.

Since consciousness is merely a word to describe some of these reactions, when those electro-chemical reactions stop - so does consciousness.

But materially they are both the same - they both have a brain, heart, legs etc etc (both are equally materially vast) but one is alive and one is dead- why?

They are not materially both the same where it matters. Cells have materially deteriorated to a point where they can not accept oxygen. The brain has materially deteriorated to a point where it can not produce or receive the necessary input. The heart, likewise, can not pump.

What is the difference between a computer that is switched on - and one that is swtiched off?
Both are materially the same, after all.

The only real difference between us and a computer, other than in the complexity of the processing (which is where "consciousness" would arise), is that if we are switched off for too long then the component parts break down to a point where the whole can not be switched on again. And if the processor is not working - there can be no "consciousness".

What part of this analogy do you not accept?

 

[AAF]

Prince_James: “Can we accord nothingness to the status of "most infinitely small", if it has no concept of size? Is it _ sensible to say "what is smaller than the infinitely small is nothing"? That which has no dimension, by definition, can surely not be regulated to such, no?……..”.

Re: Of course, we can. Its absolute-zero size makes it ideal for limiting infinitely small quantities. And so it’s quite sensible to say that the infinitely small is always greater than zero-size nothingness.


Prince_James: “…So in essence: The infinitely small is to be envisioned as the property that an infinite series of things reaches but which never encapsulates? Also, would the analytic nature of figuring out that an infinite series of division, which necessitate a quotient of the infinitely small, be truly considered a process of infinite and instantaneous division? For it seems to me that we are drawing a logically sound and truthful conclusion, but by virtue of not doing the process of division itself, not actually engaging in what you said……….”.

Re: Remember that the notion of the infinitely small was born from Archimedes’ attempt to square the circle! And so it’s very hard to get rid of its geometrical character. Only after Bishop Berkeley’s scathing criticism of infinitesimals, the infinitely small is defined analytically in terms of limits. From this standpoint, the answer to your first question is YES. Just as the infinitely large is the ever-increasing relative property of large quantities as they approach infinity, the infinitely small is also the ever-increasing relative property of small quantities as they approach ZERO. The answer to the second question is NO, the process of dividing ad infinitum does not necessitate a quotient of the infinitely small. That is required only for computing the derivatives of continuous algebraic functions. Limits are much more basic than derivatives; we can completely ignore calculus in this regard.


Prince_James: “…In that the infinitely small, if it was "lurking in the series" could not be part of an infinite series, yes? For if an infinite series has an end, then it is not an infinite series!…….”.

Re: That is true. If the smallest element of a series exists, then it follows by logical necessity that the series in question is not infinite.


Prince_James: “…I was actually speaking of applied Euclidean geometry, or rather, the fallacy of postulating that Euclidean principles - which assume an axiom of the possibility of that which is physically impossible - hold to space which could not work under their presumptions. Moreover, I critique such an abstracted system on the foundation that what it claims cannot be thought of. A two dimensional square cannot be envisioned with the mind's eye and be an object of thought, for even when we think, we think in three dimensions. And it is only in a very relative sense - such as working on flat surfaces - that we can make any sense of the system……….”.

Re: The Euclidean geometry is supposed to be the most intuitive geometry ever exists. And it’s also my pet geometry! So I don’t really understand the above critique of it. Sorry, pal; you could be right, but I just can’t see anything wrong with this geometry.


Prince_James: “…But would you go so far as to argue that infinity does not demand an actual existence as revealed to us through proper philosophical thought on the matter? For I would indeed argue that an infinity in an actual, real sense, is as necessary as the finite which we see around us, based on an argument I believe I have all ready presented, viz. the impossibility for there to be nothing to surround something, and therefore, the continuation of somethingness forever……..”.

Re: The notion of infinity implies TWO things: true elements and idealized limits. The idealized limits, by definition, cannot exist as actual entities; otherwise it would not be infinity. As for the elements, they must be examined on case by case basis. For example, all the elements of infinite space exist ontologically at this very moment. What is the idealized limit of infinite space? It’s the largest space of all spaces. This limit cannot exist ontologically; it can exist only as an absolute ideal. By contrast, the elements of future eternity do not exist, not even one single element of them. And so it’s necessary to evaluate the various types of infinity involved on case by case basis.


Prince_James: “…An interesting conception of the perfect smell, but perhaps you would elaborate on it for me? Now, if by "perfect smell", do you not mean "the smell that the most people would find pleasing and want to be around"? Or do you mean an idealized smell which is the fullest expression of the notion of smell? For in the case of the former, I do agree that this is what perfume manufacturers are seeking to produce, but in the case of the latter, I refute the notion on the foundation that it makes no sense. For what would this absurdity entail? There are different types of smells, for instance, which something cannot be at the same time, such as foul or sweet, so would this fullest expression have to hold both at the same time with infinite potency? And how could such a thing have infinite potency of smell? And then to last infinitely beyond that?………….”.

Re: Actually I mean the absolutely idealized smell, which the perfume manufacturers are seeking to produce, but will never achieve! Since if it’s achieved, then it is not absolutely perfect. And it does make perfect sense, if you view every entity in existence not as something standing alone all by itself, but as just one instance and one actual member of an endless series of instances and members of the same type. These elements must have in common a relative attribute or property or characteristic that increases in strength by approaching the absolutely perfect ideal of their endless series. Moreover, the ultimate strength of the common attribute can be of any magnitude, even a tiny fraction of one; and so it is by no means necessary for it to be infinitely large. I hope the important notion of high ideals is made a bit clear this time.

 

[Prince_James]

AAF:

"Re: Of course, we can. Its absolute-zero size makes it ideal for limiting infinitely small quantities. And so it’s quite sensible to say that the infinitely small is always greater than zero-size nothingness."

Yes, we can say that the infinitely small is greater than nothingness - in that it is not nothingness, but substantial, albeit the smallest substantial one could conceive of - but does this regulate nothingness to the true status of infinitely small? As I argued, I think not. What say you, as it is not clear if you agree or disagree at this point.

"Re: Remember that the notion of the infinitely small was born from Archimedes’ attempt to square the circle! And so it’s very hard to get rid of its geometrical character. Only after Bishop Berkeley’s scathing criticism of infinitesimals, the infinitely small is defined analytically in terms of limits. From this standpoint, the answer to your first question is YES. Just as the infinitely large is the ever-increasing relative property of large quantities as they approach infinity, the infinitely small is also the ever-increasing relative property of small quantities as they approach ZERO. The answer to the second question is NO, the process of dividing ad infinitum does not necessitate a quotient of the infinitely small. That is required only for computing the derivatives of continuous algebraic functions. Limits are much more basic than derivatives; we can completely ignore calculus in this regard. "

Whereas I do not deny the truthfulness of your affirmation that "[...] the infinitely small is also the ever-inreasing relative property of small quantities as they approach zero," I would be most interested in your response to this question?

What is the quotient of 1/infinity?

"Re: The Euclidean geometry is supposed to be the most intuitive geometry ever exists. And it’s also my pet geometry! So I don’t really understand the above critique of it. Sorry, pal; you could be right, but I just can’t see anything wrong with this geometry. "

Oh, it is a most sublime system on its own and a great feat of mathematical achievement and very easy to grasp. But I think it merely fallacious to take essentially a plane-geometry and to postulate that its axioms hold true in a real world and, furthermore, that one can even think in pure Euclidean terms. For again, it seems rather impossible for us to think in two dimensions alone, and as noted, it would seem that physically, it would be quite impossible for two dimensional shape - or anything two dimensional - to exist in a three dimensional world.

"Re: The notion of infinity implies TWO things: true elements and idealized limits. The idealized limits, by definition, cannot exist as actual entities; otherwise it would not be infinity. As for the elements, they must be examined on case by case basis. For example, all the elements of infinite space exist ontologically at this very moment. What is the idealized limit of infinite space? It’s the largest space of all spaces. This limit cannot exist ontologically; it can exist only as an absolute ideal. By contrast, the elements of future eternity do not exist, not even one single element of them. And so it’s necessary to evaluate the various types of infinity involved on case by case basis."

It would seem to me that your conception of infinity implying an "ideal limit" is incorrect. Unless I am mistaking your terminology, an "ideal limit" cannot be present in infinity, on the foundation that infinity is defined as "without limit". Similarly it would seem that you are wrong in affirming that if indeed infinity had an ideal limit, it could be construed as "the largest space of all spaces", when in fact it not simply that, but "the largest space of all spaces without end or boundaries". That is to say, it is not simply gigantic, but extends without end, or that gigantism on a cosmic scale would not suffice for something to be construed as infinite. Moreover, even if we do agree that infinity has an "ideal limit" which is not as I suggest "without limit", and this "ideal limit" cannot exist, that seems to be all the more proof for infinity, by virtue that even a concept of it being limited by its ideal is made absurd.

But yes, obviously I concur that all the elements of infinite space exist ontologically at this moment.

And as to a future eternity, you are correct. By definition of it being in the future, none of aspects of eternity in the future exist. We can indeed speak then of all concepts related to a future eternity as ideal, for though they are not manifest, they are demanded to manifest eventually, though never to be realized in full, lest it not be a true infinity of time forward from the present moment.

"Re: Actually I mean the absolutely idealized smell, which the perfume manufacturers are seeking to produce, but will never achieve! Since if it’s achieved, then it is not absolutely perfect. And it does make perfect sense, if you view every entity in existence not as something standing alone all by itself, but as just one instance and one actual member of an endless series of instances and members of the same type. These elements must have in common a relative attribute or property or characteristic that increases in strength by approaching the absolutely perfect ideal of their endless series. Moreover, the ultimate strength of the common attribute can be of any magnitude, even a tiny fraction of one; and so it is by no means necessary for it to be infinitely large. I hope the important notion of high ideals is made a bit clear this time."

This is an interesting conception, but I am not certain I can at present concur with you, although your argument here presented is unique and intriguing. For whereas some systems do have an ideal that is logically consistant with the property, it is hard to associate an ideal to this perfect smell, on the foundation that it would seem impossible to give a definition of what this ideal is. Whereas i t is sensible to speak of an ideal of space, it does not seem to be of smell. Perhaps if you were able to present the defining characteristics of this perfect smell.

 

[lightgigantic]

Eh?? I never said consciousness is "caused by matter". I said consciousness is a word to describe a material process. And what do you mean by "are either conscious or mysterious"?

Well it seems that you are still saying that consciousness is caused by matter since you don't ascribe anything to beyond matter - by my last statement I mean that if you examine anything in this waking world you will see that it was caused by consciousness or by a cause that we cannot properly define or exhibit, hence the causes in this world are either conscious or mysterious

Once built, some machines can operate entirely ON THEIR OWN - seeking out sunlight that they change to energy to move toward the next bit of sunlight. How is that an expansion of the builder's consciousness? It is an entirely autonomous machine.

Then why do machines need repairmen and operators and designers? What are some examples of machines that can operate entirely on their own since solar panels are obviously not in that catergory

Define your use of the word "consciousness".

alive - compare dead lifeless matter

Are you also saying that children are merely an expansion of the parents' consciousnesses?

In a way but not entirely because they are seperated expansions, ie idependant units

Once again you make utterly unsubstantiated claims.
HOW is a bacteria self-conscious?

It can independantly ascertain its own benefit without the input of another conscious entity

How is a batertia anything more than a biological machine?

Well at the very least it is a machine that is countless millions of times more complex than any machine we can create don't you think?

Where is your evidence?

Well its straight forward - where is your evidence for anything contrary? Where is that conscious machine we have constructed that no longer requires conscious input?

Not being a biologist, I couldn't tell you all the differences.
But I think someone else gave you an answer somewhere above.
I would say the two fundamental differences are a lack of electro-chemical reactions in the brain - and a heart that is no longer beating.

Then why can't establishing these mechanical differences to a dead body bring back life if its only the question of a valve pumping and a bit of properly applied electricity?

But let me ask you - what is the difference between a battery with power and a battery without power?

The power obviously - and unlike a dead body you can recharge a battery from a "dead" state - that's the difference between a dead body and a living one - you can not re-establish the characteristics of life when it is dead

It's NOT invisible to our perception at all - which is why people can be confirmed as DEAD.
Otherwise we would only ever be guessing when someone is dead or not.
We can observe directly whether someone is showing signs of life - heartbeat - electro-chemical reactions in the brain etc.
THESE ARE NOT INVISIBLE TO OUR PERCEPTION.

What is invisible is that operating principle - its like saying that if a car doesn't move you can tell it doesn't have a driver but you have no idea who or what the driver is - in otherwords you arrive at a conclusion by default as opposed to perceiving the functional cause because the cause is invisible (to your perception)

Since consciousness is merely a word to describe some of these reactions, when those electro-chemical reactions stop - so does consciousness.

Consciousness is a word used to describe an objective phenomena - you say it is merely a result of electro-chemical interactions despite lacking any scientific ability to create such electro chemical life such as even a fruit fly - that is why I say your claims for definitions of consciousness lack any scientific foundation.

They are not materially both the same where it matters. Cells have materially deteriorated to a point where they can not accept oxygen. The brain has materially deteriorated to a point where it can not produce or receive the necessary input. The heart, likewise, can not pump.

So why do people die despite the best medical attention - its not like everyone who enters the hospital doors is a rotting corpse - why can't you establish and maintain life on the basis of such an understanding?

What is the difference between a computer that is switched on - and one that is swtiched off?
Both are materially the same, after all.

With the computer, one is dormant and one is present- the difference with the body is that one is present (conscious) and one is absent (lifeless)

The only real difference between us and a computer, other than in the complexity of the processing (which is where "consciousness" would arise), is that if we are switched off for too long then the component parts break down to a point where the whole can not be switched on again. And if the processor is not working - there can be no "consciousness".
What part of this analogy do you not accept?

Well to begin with a computer only has a processing ability that requires cobnscious input, just like a bucket has the ability to carry water (provided there is the consciousness to construct and utilise it)

 

[lightgigantic]

"***** This is god’s perspective – there is nothing distinct for him since he is not subject to illusion – again it slike the sun and the sunshine – sunshine emanates from the sun but it is not the sun – in the same way everything emanates from god but everything is not god - the general principle is that one thing is the cause and the other is the effect"

Okay. So in God's perspective we are all unified, but in ours we are not. Yet could God even appreciate the notion of illusion? Be capable of thinking of himself in parts?

*****Well we also think of our own body in parts but our body is opnly functional if all the parts co-operate - in other words whether thinking in parts or as a whole god is always functional (the same cannot be said of ourselves)



"***** The ability to make decisions – it is a characteristic of sentience distinct from machines performing functions"

Okay. I will agree that some material things cannot make decisions. Other material things - life forms - certainly can, though.

*****What is an example of a material thing that can make a decision unless it is caused by consciousness


"***** The ability to make decisions requires options"

And how are we to be sure that the "supposed options" we had to do other than we did, we ever valid? For clearly, if our character is such and such a way, we shall react in such and such a manner, no?

****** Unless you were conscious you couldn't even ruminate like that

"***** Matter does nothing because it has no free will"

What of the myriad movements present in matter? The planets, through no will of their own, orbit around the sun, which orbits around the galaxy, which orbits around other, more massive galaxies, in a supercluster of galaxies which likely orbits around a super-cluster of super-clusters of galaxies, which in turn orbits around other....et cetera, et cetera.

**** There is the example of a train travelling at 100km/hr - everything on the train is also moving at the same speed but if you examine the cause you will see that it is because of the locomotive (and the locomotive owes its capacity to consciousness, ie it has an operator) - Basically you have to follow the cause, which will inevitably lead to consciousness or mystery (in the case where our knowledge of the cause is limited)

Right now, I am drinking lemonade, and as I type the ice is melting and the juice is separating and becoming flat. The sugars are breaking apart and water is collecting on the glass.

*****That is due to atmosphere, and I am sure that if you followed the causes of the atmosphere you would end up in mystery since our knowledge is not capable of competantly answering all the q's about the causes of atmosphere etc


"**** How do you know that wind is not moved by consciousness? It may not be moved by yours or mine – at the very least there is still a bit of scientific work to be done in the field of meteorology to determine the exact cause of wind (otherwise why is it not uncommon for weather predictions to be inaccurate) so you cannot make the authoritative statement what causes the wind because science cannot adequately answer that (sure they may have plenty of theories though)"

At the very least, we can create air currents that mimic weather patterns even in our laboratories.

***** Then those wind currents were created by consciousness, namely the scientists in the labs

"***** Again the mind is a subtle substance. Materially what is the difference between a dead body and a living one?"

A lack of a heart beat. A degeneration of neural functioning. The process of cellular rot has begun with the ceasation of cellular function. The blood clotting in the veins. The metabolic engine ceasing to produce heat. In essence: Various relations no longer are present, all which account for life in a body.

***** Then why not thin the blood, insert a better valve machine and apply adequate electricity to restore life then?

"******If a person is conditioned they cannot see it just as a person wearing blue glasses cannot see anything but blue – there is however the ability to arrive at such a conclusion at least theoretically since even the manifested existence suggests the existence of an unmanifested one, just as shadow suggests a real existence"

How does this manifest existence suggest an unmanifested one?

******Just as a shadow indicates the real thing - its not perfect knowledge but it indicates enough to say that the cause is not the shadow


"*****If it is so presumable why hasn’t it been done? All creations of life require that one work with life and not matter"

Trillions of atoms are found in even the simplest cells. It is beyond our technological ken for at least another decade, when nanotechnology may allow us the capacity to assemble things on such scales .

******Postdated cheques are not very reliable in either commerce or science - better to talk of what is rather than what could be (unless you are in the process of writing a sci-fi novel)

Right now we can do parlour tricks and make atoms line up to spell the name of companies and the like.

******* I can do the same thing with house bricks - what's the difference if both constructions are lifeless?


"**** The point is that you can take a bundle of sticks and create a bridge but you cannot take a bunch of atomical components and create life. No matter how complex matter may be, it cannot manifest consciousness"

Why do you suggest this is so when we have foundm, thus far, consciousness only in living things? It would stand to reason then that there is some connection.

****Just like the connection between a moving car and a driver


"*****Another separated energy of god, distinct from matter because it has consciousness characterized by free will"

But different from consciousness? Or the same? Or is this essentially the Atman to the Brahman, to borrow Hindu terminology?

**** Atma means spirit, so it can be applied to either god or the living entity, but their are more definitive terms such as paramatma (super spirit) which indicates god - there are descriptions that state god is distinct from other eternal life forces because he maintains all other life

"*****God is conscious – and he has two energies – an illusory one (for the benefit of the living entities to express free will) and a conscious one (the living entities) "

Why is it necesary for living beings to express "free-will" through illusion and not through reality?

****** Material desires that cannot be expressed through reality, in otherwords the desire to be completely seperate from god (ie Jadananda - the bliss of ignorance) cannot be manifest in the spiritual realm, hence we acquire a material identity as we fancy in a temporary world


"***** Even fire has three energies, namely heat, light and smoke "

So then what? Non-consciousness is to consciousness as fire is to heat, with consciousness being the light?

******* the many potencies of fire was meant to indicate a variety of subtle and gross energies - smoke is the gross one - if that is true of fire, what to speak of god

"*****A parent gives there child $10 to buy them something for the parents birthday and even if they know what the gift is they still appreciate it because it is an act of love - "

Yes, but this is quite a bit different then being able to be conscious, when one cannot even formulate the thoughts that inspire the responses which one all ready knows.

*******The point is that what a conscious entity values most is reciprocation (material acquisition is merely a means for reciprocation) - god shares a similar notion, although his reciprocation is not subject to the inebrieties of reciprocation that we are familiar with


"***** They are distinct according to consciousness – for a liberated person there is no illusion – matter is illusory in the sense that it is temporary and has no stable platform"

Is it not then not illusionary, but simply transient? It is rather like saying that summer is illusionary, because its comes and goes.

*******Summer is illusory when we consceive of it as an eternal constant season not subject to change (just like we conceive of the body as our eternal identity, despite a 100% track record to the contrary with every other living entity on the planet - ie illusion)


"****Not unless he agrees to it"

So God can limit himself? How can an infinite being do such?

*******His ability is always constantly expanding his limits, that's why he can remain eternal and not suffer from boredom etc, and its also the dynamic principle of eternal existence

"*****Applying material dimensions to a transcendental phenomena often leads to absurd conclusions"

When where are his organs of sense?

*******The point is that just because god is better it doesn't mean he is "bigger" - he can be bigger than the biggest or smaller than the smallest and still retain his same potencies -

"**** He reveals himself to one who takes a personal interest in him – in otherwords, god, like ourselves, is a creature of reciprocation"

Yet no one can take a personal interest in that which they do not know exists. I cannot be interested in your views, for instance, until I knew both of you and that you had views.

**** Therefore the first business of spiritual life is to read scripture and acquire some primary knowledge of god so you can actually know something about him - its just like a political advertising campaign for preseidency is useless unless people actually have a concept of the president (of course god doesn't require your vote - lol - its a bit of a sloppy analogy but hopefully it makes sense)


"****** Even poverty stricken people feel they have something exclusive in their personal dealings"

So God has a feeling of worth, in essence?

******Most definitely

"***** The factory is also independent of the factory owner – if the factory burns down the factory owner is not physically affected"

So then matter and God -are- independent?

******the correct word translates as "simultaneous inconceivable oneness and difference" - in other words the factory is not actually independant of the factory owner because he controls it, but at the same time he exists outside of the factory independent of it



"******Not ignorant like us – in the sense of totally bewildered by a false concept of life"

Yet even then God would have to have a mind, which I argue he does not.

****** He does have a mind – actually there is a break down of our own subtlr body that is mind, intelligence, false ego and spirit (each one is successively more subtle than the previous) god (and liberated persons also) have all these minus the false ego

"****** Indicated by an examination of the cause of this world, beyond theory however it relies on practical application – scripture can be helpful, but if you refuse to apply an authority to scripture it will be a bit difficult to progress – just like it is a bit difficult to progress in medicine if you think that every book written on the subject is bogus"

What of the cause of this world makes you think of consciousness?

******What cause can be traced to matter? That’s why I mentioned earlier that causes are either conscious or mysterious due to a few lacking elements of knowledge

"***** By application"

So if the scriptures are applied and find lacking, we invalidate them?

******Not necessarily – just like if you are sick and go to a pharmacy and try and be your own doctor you do not invalidate medicine even though medicine was applied – application means correct application, hence spiritual life is often not just a scripture but also those who are more successful in application (ie saintly persons)


"***** The existential conditions are that one acts according to the instructions of scripture"

Yet even withotu the scriptures, you claim that the universe would testify to everything with them?

****** Yes – but again its just like there are two ways to touch your nose – the easy way and the hard way

"*****Who exactly are these “original doctors”? How many persons can you name that are established in medicine who applied the method of these “original doctors”? If being an original doctor is an absurd idea why is it necessary to apply the same ridiculousness to spiritual discussion?"

Hippocrates and Galen are examples, in the West, of "original doctors".

***** Even they worked out of an existing paradigm of medicine, albeit a some what primitive one, hence they ar enot reallly original doctors but reformers of knowledge

Louis Pasteur was, in part, another. They, with little knowledg to procede them, looked at the body and investigated causes and effects directly, rather than through recourse solely to prior developments.

****** BTW there are three methods of acquiring knowledge and each is acceptable according to its proper application – direct sense perception (good for looking out for cars before crossing a street but not so good for science)
- mental speculation (good for things within our realm of rumination, like medicine for instance, but not good for things that exist outside our realm of verification, like the dimensions of the universe etc)
-Hearing from authority – even a lot of mental speculation operates on this principle – you go to university, etc to learn – the poin tis that fact is already established and one applies this method to acquire the process of perceiving it

"*****Actually the reality is that all doctors (or at least over 99.9999% of them)apply what they have learnt from an established body of work."

Yes, but originally doctors had to find the source exterior to any tradition.

****** Once a body or work is established then a person is no longer required to re-invent the wheel – even contemporary threads of empiricism operate on the same principle – what contemporary doctor who is highly competant doesn’t go to university?

"*** That’s why its helpful, whether you are talking about medicine or religion, to know who is properly qualified and who is not, lest you judge the genre by its worst stereotype."

It is indeed, but it would seem that religion has as its foundation human effort, and not divine authorship, just like medicine and the sciences.

****** Why does it seem like that?

 

[lightgigantic]

What authority do priests and scriptures really have?

****** They are transparent mediums to god, just like a window is a transparent medium to the sunlight – in other words just as light has symptoms of quality so does a qualified priest and scriopture


"If it is transcendental"

How does the transcendental exist without a cause? What is the aspect of the transcendental that makes it causeless? If it does not have a cause, how does it exist? What shows that it has no cause?

****** A transcendental object is eternal – its not uncommon to encounter even an etheist who will admit that the universe requires eternal elements (they will say these elements are not conscious though)


"The later is more accurate - Since your curious there are many scriptures in the vedas but the Bhagavad-gita is like a primary overview for spiritual knowledge"

Are you, perchance, a Hare Krishna? That is, a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?

******** That is the most popular branch of vaisnavism outside and perhaps even inside india

But yes, I am familiar with the Bhagavad-Gita. I have read it before.

****** It’s a common book

"Its just like asking how and when did fire emmanate heat - its part of the qualifications that determine the object

These are big questions but I will just give replies in essence - basically you have to look at what is meant by god - often it is said that god is great but generally people have no idea how he is great - like for instance he is not a being subject to th e limitations of linear time - because we are in the medium of illusion we cannot conceive of these things - basically to conceive of them you have to be on the liberated platform - its just like asking what is the taste of honey - you could say it is sweet , etc etc but the only real way to know is to taste it.
As for why matter needs a creator or maintainer, do you have any experience of matter acting independently?"

Yes, existence itself, made of matter, acts independent of a cosmic will, from what I can gather.

*****How do you form a comprehensive notion of cosmic will?

Indeed, in order for it to be eternal, it mustn't have a genesis in a will, for a will would then have to precede it, which contradicts the evidence of its eternity.

****** You may decide to go for a walk or decise not to go for a walkl but the walking capacity you have is constant outside of your will

But as I argued: If God determines a law of result, does not that requrie a law of result before that? For if God wills it, and there is no "law of result", then God should not be able to will anything and have that will put into action, including putting the "law of result" in action. That is, if the law of result was neither before nor came at the same time as God, then God could not will a thing as you so say.

****** The laws of result are also eternal – in otherwords no matter what cosmic annhilation or creation is taking place, in otherwords regardless whether the laws are put in a dormant or active state, they always remain in the same functional capacity – there is a whole different aspect to the nature of the spiritual world but that is a bit beyond us at the moment because it requires that liberated perception to understand it – in otherwords there is a distinction between the material and spiritual worlds according to their functional existence even though both are eternal

But you said that God emmanated the laws and thus clearly know something about them. Why can you not elaborate when and in what manner he did such? I can explain to you how fire works and why it produces heat. You do not seem to be able to do the same for God.

****** What exactly is it that you want to know about god – of course all things cannot be answered – just like fire requires at least two things, dry wood and a match, knowledge requires a qualified speaker and a qualified listener (whether it is spiritual or material knowledge)

"I am not sure what you are asking? How is it inhibited? If the only thing determining your free will is practically your own self?"

Well let me ask you this: Does a thought have a cause?

******* yes,

"Only for as long as he remains blind"

Then an imprisoned man similarly does not lose his freedom of will, only its capacity to act on that freedom, just as the man blindfolded cannot see until such is removed, yet loses not his sight.

****** But at the same time you cannot go to an artificail insemination clinic and demand that you become your own father because the answer is that that position is already taken

"(Mine)You asked me how consciousness stems from non-consciousness. I ask you how variety stems from homogeny.

(Yours)I think I answered that at the beginning with the points about god's internal and external energy"

Which points specifically do you think cover these things?

******* God has material and spiritual energies that emmanate from him, just like fire has smoke, heat etc

"When you come to the source - just like if you examine the variety of sunlight you could be drawing conclusions that are actually relative to the cloud cover etc but if you can somehow trace them and observe their source, that is the sun, then it can be said that you are observing the truth of the phenomena of sunlight."

Yet if all variety is illusionary in one way or another, how does this unity so interact with things to give said illusion? Because an absolute unity devoid of variety could not, it would seem, interact with anything besides itself, which would be unified as a whole with no distinction of parts.

****** All variety is not illusory – it comes in two varieties – true and false

"It s just like observing the sun independant of sunrises and sun sets and night time."

So it is basically like looking at the sun constantly? That God has an aspect of constantcy that doesn't permit of beginning nor end? Yet how do you know this? Moreover, what is the nature of this form beyoind that? Its structure? How did you come to this knowledge? What proof do you have?

****** Application by scripture and saintly persons – how do you know that honey is sweet?

"Its not all illusion - only conditional life - as for material and non material, we can do so many things to dull matter due to consciousness."

Yet what property of consciousness allows us to interact with something which is diametrically opposed to it? And how does it work through matter to do this? And if it is not an illusion, but conditioned life, is it then as real as this other, non-conditioned, thing?

***** Is a rope snake as real as an actual snake?

"Well god can expand himself but he gets greater pleasure from interacting with other conscious living entities (preferably the liberatde ones) rather than his own direct expansions"

Why does he get greater pleasure? And how can that which is complete have pleasure?

***** It becomes more complete – or more perfect (no end to perfection)

But you did not answer my question: Does a baseball bat of transcendence send a baseball of matter flying?

****** All baseballs that hit all balls are transcendental because they require consciousness to hit anything – otherwise a baseball bat could sit in a room full of balls for a million years and not hit a thing

"He can be found out alone, just like you can discover the elements of science without theory and prac, but it is a hell of a lot easier if you have done systematic training to arrive at understanding - it saves wasting time"

So then God -is- an object of independent inquiry and verification? Then why not simply resort to this?

****** Why bother going to university to become a doctor?

"No - it implies the weakness to add and substract to an already perfect process"

Then you say religion is weak, because it does this? Or God is weak because he cannot make a religion that makes sense at all times?

****** We are weak because we have a tendency to adulterate perfect processes

"God doesn't change - its the imperfect perception of god gained by wrong practice that is re-established by something closer to the truth of the matter"

Yet if God created the former practice...how could he have failed?

****** We caused its failure, hence it is constantly being re-established

"Unless you have knowledge of god - just like a person who has knowledge of gold can detect fake gold"

Yet cannot knowledge of God only come from the scriptures, subject as they are to change?

******* yes, from scripture, scriptures change according to time place and circumstance – just like there are many different types of visual art in different cultures (according to time, place etc) but if you assembled an exhibition of different pictures of trees from different cultures it would be easy to pick out the key elements – in other words despite all the variety there are some integral qualities

"Actually the faults belong to us - its kind of a case of bad habit sdie hard so the process of religion is generally a gradual one over many lifetimes although it can theoretically be arrived at in a moment. "

Cannot God so compensate for our faults that he can present something that even the faulty could not be flawed in analysis of?

**** then we wouldn’t have free will and hence wouldn’t be conscious – he offers religion, which you can accept or reject according to your free will – beyond that you just get the school of hard knocks of material existence for a spiritual education

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

Holy crap is our conversation getting long.

"*****Well we also think of our own body in parts but our body is opnly functional if all the parts co-operate - in other words whether thinking in parts or as a whole god is always functional (the same cannot be said of ourselves)"

Well do we not recognize "part" because we can recognize differences with those around us? It would seem impossible to have even a concept of "part" if we had no such reference.

"*****What is an example of a material thing that can make a decision unless it is caused by consciousness"

I never claimed there was one. Volitional actions are naturally through consciousness. That being said, consciousness does not need to be a metaphysical category because of this.

"****** Unless you were conscious you couldn't even ruminate like that"

I agree. I never claimed that I was not conscious.

"**** There is the example of a train travelling at 100km/hr - everything on the train is also moving at the same speed but if you examine the cause you will see that it is because of the locomotive (and the locomotive owes its capacity to consciousness, ie it has an operator) - Basically you have to follow the cause, which will inevitably lead to consciousness or mystery (in the case where our knowledge of the cause is limited)"

Indeed there are such cases where consciousness can be at the root cause of it physical phenomena, but the planets do not have a discernible or likely conscious cause, nor the various systems on Earth.

"*****That is due to atmosphere, and I am sure that if you followed the causes of the atmosphere you would end up in mystery since our knowledge is not capable of competantly answering all the q's about the causes of atmosphere etc"

we do not know every single aspect of the atmosphere, but we can indeed point to the causes of the atmosphere and the reason why it works the way it does and such, and so far, no conscious designer or any worker has ever been found.

"***** Then those wind currents were created by consciousness, namely the scientists in the labs"

But the process is not conscious. We may provide the means, but the process is itself automatic. Our consciousness stops as soon as we put the gas into the container and let it produce atmosphere effects.

"***** Then why not thin the blood, insert a better valve machine and apply adequate electricity to restore life then?"

Often the damage is too extensive at the time. Bone marrow, for instance, almost instantly becomes unusuable as soon as one dies. Death basically ruins the body almost instantly beyond our current capacity to repair. However, you do raise a good point that, should we be able to repair the body more fully, we should be able to return people from death.

"******Just as a shadow indicates the real thing - its not perfect knowledge but it indicates enough to say that the cause is not the shadow"

Yet what aspect of material existence points towards it being the shadow in this equation? What particular things?

"******Postdated cheques are not very reliable in either commerce or science - better to talk of what is rather than what could be (unless you are in the process of writing a sci-fi novel)"

Indeed it is true that I ventured into the speculative, however, it demonstrates that it is not absurd to think that it is possible to essentially create life out of the constituent parts. If such is completed - as I affirm it will - it will deal a serious blow to the necessity of there bieng something else but life in the creature.

"****Just like the connection between a moving car and a driver"

Save that when a car is destroyed, the driver still remains for all to see if he was not in it. When life is destroyed, the "liver" is not to be found.

"**** Atma means spirit, so it can be applied to either god or the living entity, but their are more definitive terms such as paramatma (super spirit) which indicates god - there are descriptions that state god is distinct from other eternal life forces because he maintains all other life"

But what of you spoke, the "living entity", is distinct from consciousness or not?

"****** Material desires that cannot be expressed through reality, in otherwords the desire to be completely seperate from god (ie Jadananda - the bliss of ignorance) cannot be manifest in the spiritual realm, hence we acquire a material identity as we fancy in a temporary world"

Yet this desire is both unneeded, as is material desires. If no such illusion existed, no such desires would be produced. In essence: A limited being, born in a "real universe" - that is, knowing it is not limited at all - would not be able to fathom of the desire for limitation.

"******* the many potencies of fire was meant to indicate a variety of subtle and gross energies - smoke is the gross one - if that is true of fire, what to speak of god"

So God has many categories of energy is what you are saying?

"*******The point is that what a conscious entity values most is reciprocation (material acquisition is merely a means for reciprocation) - god shares a similar notion, although his reciprocation is not subject to the inebrieties of reciprocation that we are familiar with"

Whether this is true or not, however, is quite irrelevant to whether God is conscious. Moreover, reciprocation implies a lack of something. How can God lack and be perfect? He canont, lest he be imperfect.

"*******Summer is illusory when we consceive of it as an eternal constant season not subject to change (just like we conceive of the body as our eternal identity, despite a 100% track record to the contrary with every other living entity on the planet - ie illusion)"

Yet actually, nothing in this material universe is truly temporal or transient. Energy - which matter is composed of - is neither creatable or destroyable. Only the relations of energy can be changed, not the energy itself. Does not this imply -ultimate- realness to the material universe?

"*******His ability is always constantly expanding his limits, that's why he can remain eternal and not suffer from boredom etc, and its also the dynamic principle of eternal existence"

Yet God could not have limits to expand if he is infinite, nor could it be at all "a cure for theo-ennui", because God cannot have resistances. How can a God place limits on himself, moreover, and still remain perfect?

"*******The point is that just because god is better it doesn't mean he is "bigger" - he can be bigger than the biggest or smaller than the smallest and still retain his same potencies - "

Even so, please show me the organs of sense which God has?

"**** Therefore the first business of spiritual life is to read scripture and acquire some primary knowledge of god so you can actually know something about him - its just like a political advertising campaign for preseidency is useless unless people actually have a concept of the president (of course god doesn't require your vote - lol - its a bit of a sloppy analogy but hopefully it makes sense)"

Yet these scriptures should not exist if God wanted first reciprocity, as we'd have to, before even having the scriptures, know God, yet could not know God, as you said he hid without repiprocity! Moreover, how are we to be certain the scriptures are true? Most people who are both familiar with the scriptures and of a religious nature, get nothing out of such.

"******Most definitely"

Yet is not worth dependent on value? Which is dependent on need or greed? Both which depend on lack?

"******the correct word translates as "simultaneous inconceivable oneness and difference" - in other words the factory is not actually independant of the factory owner because he controls it, but at the same time he exists outside of the factory independent of it"

When we speak of controlling orselves, do we split ourselves up into two distinct things? Or do we not conceive of it simply as the exercise of power on oneself, that is, to conform oneself to an idea one has put forth as valuable? Then if God is infinite, and must indeed be everything there is, then can matter be seperate and independent from God in even a relative sense, if it is God exercising control over himself?

"****** He does have a mind – actually there is a break down of our own subtlr body that is mind, intelligence, false ego and spirit (each one is successively more subtle than the previous) god (and liberated persons also) have all these minus the false ego"

What is "false ego" precisely? What also is "spirit"? And what is the distinguishing factors betwixt "mind" and "intelligence"?

"******What cause can be traced to matter? That’s why I mentioned earlier that causes are either conscious or mysterious due to a few lacking elements of knowledge"

Yet if mysterious they are, can you not answer without error that this material world demands consciousness? For if it is mysterious as you truly claim, you have no foundation to suggest either way. Moreover, simply because an action has a conscious cause does not mean we must stop there, also. For what caused the conscious cause? And what caused that which caused the concious cause? Et cetera, et cetera. Even if as we can ask "what causes air?" then "what causes oxygen?" then "what causes quarks", et cetera, et cetera, so too can we ask an infinite series of questions in regards to conscious causes.

"******Not necessarily – just like if you are sick and go to a pharmacy and try and be your own doctor you do not invalidate medicine even though medicine was applied – application means correct application, hence spiritual life is often not just a scripture but also those who are more successful in application (ie saintly persons)"

Yet then for the non-saintly person, religion is superfluous? Or how do we not know that it is simply through cultivating "saintly virtues" that we are not deceiving ourselves? For there exists many saints in this world and they no more agree on all things than any other person is.

"****** Yes – but again its just like there are two ways to touch your nose – the easy way and the hard way"

Yet if the hard way gives true knowledge and the easy way gives only faith, must not we accept the hard way?

"***** Even they worked out of an existing paradigm of medicine, albeit a some what primitive one, hence they ar enot reallly original doctors but reformers of knowledge"

Yet they still took the effort to almost completely start medicine as we know it today. In essence, they are the closest we get to an "original doctor" outside of possibly some clever caveman which we know no name of. But nonetheless, it stands to reason that there was once a human being who oringally sought to cure the body.

"****** BTW there are three methods of acquiring knowledge and each is acceptable according to its proper application – direct sense perception (good for looking out for cars before crossing a street but not so good for science)
- mental speculation (good for things within our realm of rumination, like medicine for instance, but not good for things that exist outside our realm of verification, like the dimensions of the universe etc)
-Hearing from authority – even a lot of mental speculation operates on this principle – you go to university, etc to learn – the poin tis that fact is already established and one applies this method to acquire the process of perceiving it"

Yet does not authority's rightness or wrongness hinge upon the first two? That is, an authority which cannot be verified by either the first or the second, is not an authority which can be trusted. Similarly, if we find the authority lacking, we must discard of it. Does not this also reduce authority to simply those who have come to knowledge through the first two in the past? But is impossible to rely on alone?

"****** Once a body or work is established then a person is no longer required to re-invent the wheel – even contemporary threads of empiricism operate on the same principle – what contemporary doctor who is highly competant doesn’t go to university? "

I do not deny this at all. Only that originally, doctoring necessitated an independent-from-authority speculative field and which, periodically, must be renewed, and in fact, has been being renewed in modern medicine, as much of our efforts are currently based in research work, not "knowledge from authority".

"****** Why does it seem like that? "

If all doctors and lawyers and boxers and gardeners, originally had to seek information themselves, and not from an authority, it would stand that priests were originally philosophers, and thus the books we have of holy knowledge must be human, and not divine, in nature. Moreover, even if it was from God, it wouldn't matter, as we'd have to verify it through thought and observation.

"****** A transcendental object is eternal – its not uncommon to encounter even an etheist who will admit that the universe requires eternal elements (they will say these elements are not conscious though)"

How is a transcendental object eternal? Can you give me an example of an argument you have to prove such? Not that I, for one, am arguing that eternal things do not exist, merely I do not regulat ethem to any supposed notion of "transcendental".

"******** That is the most popular branch of vaisnavism outside and perhaps even inside india

But was I right in thinking you such? Or are you just a Vaisnavist?

"*****How do you form a comprehensive notion of cosmic will?"

A cosmic will would be manifest outside of necessity, but on whim. Existence, on the other hand, seems to be based on necessity.

"****** You may decide to go for a walk or decise not to go for a walkl but the walking capacity you have is constant outside of your will"

It is indeed, but the eternity of this existence means that it cannot have a genesis.

"****** The laws of result are also eternal – in otherwords no matter what cosmic annhilation or creation is taking place, in otherwords regardless whether the laws are put in a dormant or active state, they always remain in the same functional capacity – there is a whole different aspect to the nature of the spiritual world but that is a bit beyond us at the moment because it requires that liberated perception to understand it – in otherwords there is a distinction between the material and spiritual worlds according to their functional existence even though both are eternal"

Then if the law of result is eternal, God cannot remove it, nor is he the creator of it. That is to say, it is a principle that even God must be subject to or is part of.

We'll get back to this "liberated perception" and the matter of "distinction of the material and spiritual".

"****** What exactly is it that you want to know about god – of course all things cannot be answered – just like fire requires at least two things, dry wood and a match, knowledge requires a qualified speaker and a qualified listener (whether it is spiritual or material knowledge)"

You claimed previously that God manifested and can unmanifest (and has unmanifested) the law of result and various other laws. You then claimed that you did not know how. Well, as you just asked me to ask anything, and seemingly are not sure if you know how or not, I will ask again: How did God do the above?

"Well let me ask you this: Does a thought have a cause?

******* yes,"

And the thought's cause also has a cause? And so on and so forth?

"****** But at the same time you cannot go to an artificail insemination clinic and demand that you become your own father because the answer is that that position is already taken"

This is true. But I am failing to see your point here.

"******* God has material and spiritual energies that emmanate from him, just like fire has smoke, heat etc"

As we are discussing them elsewhere, we'll continue on with that.

"****** All variety is not illusory – it comes in two varieties – true and false"

Define each and give me an example of both? Moreover, are you claiming that heterogeny exists in God?

"****** Application by scripture and saintly persons – how do you know that honey is sweet?"

I have tasted it. Yet what experience or argument applied from scripture points to his "transcendent beginning and endness"? And specifically the transcendent aspect of that? Moreover, how are you certain that it points to that?

"***** Is a rope snake as real as an actual snake?"

Certainly not, but conditional does not imply rope snakehood.

"***** It becomes more complete – or more perfect (no end to perfection)"

Pleasure also speaks of a lack of perfection, for to be pleased is to be displeased, and an infinite being also cannot have any of its attributes lesser at one time than another.

"****** All baseballs that hit all balls are transcendental because they require consciousness to hit anything – otherwise a baseball bat could sit in a room full of balls for a million years and not hit a thing"

Yet the medium is in matter. How does transcendence control matter if it is not material and connected with the material?

"****** Why bother going to university to become a doctor?"

For at times, it may indeed be wiser. The path of philosophy one can be sure of the knowledge, but the path of religion one must simply rely.


"****** We are weak because we have a tendency to adulterate perfect processes"

How can that which is perfect and made by a perfect beings, be imperfected by imperfect beings?

"****** We caused its failure, hence it is constantly being re-established"

If God was perfect, he could not fail even when met with the fallible.

"******* yes, from scripture, scriptures change according to time place and circumstance – just like there are many different types of visual art in different cultures (according to time, place etc) but if you assembled an exhibition of different pictures of trees from different cultures it would be easy to pick out the key elements – in other words despite all the variety there are some integral qualities"

Some integral qualities in a mix of differentness. Is this truly a perfect system? One without flaws?

"**** then we wouldn’t have free will and hence wouldn’t be conscious – he offers religion, which you can accept or reject according to your free will – beyond that you just get the school of hard knocks of material existence for a spiritual education "

Yet as I asked: Is God free and without ignorance?

 

[lightgigantic]

ightgigantic:

Holy crap is our conversation getting long.

"*****Well we also think of our own body in parts but our body is opnly functional if all the parts co-operate - in other words whether thinking in parts or as a whole god is always functional (the same cannot be said of ourselves)"

Well do we not recognize "part" because we can recognize differences with those around us? It would seem impossible to have even a concept of "part" if we had no such reference.

**** all parts belong to god (ultimately) although there is the facility for the jiva or living entity to think otherwise under the guise of illusion, but in the proper vision of things all parts are seen to belong to god (in otherwords just like all parts of a body that co-operate equal a functional body) – part can mean either rebellious or co-operative because of free will

"*****What is an example of a material thing that can make a decision unless it is caused by consciousness"

I never claimed there was one. Volitional actions are naturally through consciousness. That being said, consciousness does not need to be a metaphysical category because of this.

*******At the least it is distinct from matter
.

"**** There is the example of a train travelling at 100km/hr - everything on the train is also moving at the same speed but if you examine the cause you will see that it is because of the locomotive (and the locomotive owes its capacity to consciousness, ie it has an operator) - Basically you have to follow the cause, which will inevitably lead to consciousness or mystery (in the case where our knowledge of the cause is limited)"

Indeed there are such cases where consciousness can be at the root cause of it physical phenomena, but the planets do not have a discernible or likely conscious cause, nor the various systems on Earth.

******Then you are left with a mysterious cause because we cann not trace the cause of them – either effects have a conscious or a mysterious cause if you trace them far enough, and the revealing of this mystery is the fruit of the successful performance of service to god

"*****That is due to atmosphere, and I am sure that if you followed the causes of the atmosphere you would end up in mystery since our knowledge is not capable of competantly answering all the q's about the causes of atmosphere etc"

we do not know every single aspect of the atmosphere, but we can indeed point to the causes of the atmosphere and the reason why it works the way it does and such, and so far, no conscious designer or any worker has ever been found.

******Then lets trace this one out as an example – what is the cause of the changes perceivable in the atmosphere

"***** Then those wind currents were created by consciousness, namely the scientists in the labs"

But the process is not conscious. We may provide the means, but the process is itself automatic. Our consciousness stops as soon as we put the gas into the container and let it produce atmosphere effects.

******But there is no question of the phenomena occurring without conscious endeavour – its just like swinging a baseball bat to hit a ball and saying the bat is the ultimate cause

"***** Then why not thin the blood, insert a better valve machine and apply adequate electricity to restore life then?"

Often the damage is too extensive at the time. Bone marrow, for instance, almost instantly becomes unusuable as soon as one dies. Death basically ruins the body almost instantly beyond our current capacity to repair. However, you do raise a good point that, should we be able to repair the body more fully, we should be able to return people from death.

******Well why don’t you fix people before that? Actually it illustrates the powerful nature of consciousness – the moment it leaves the entire machine of the body becomes useless

"******Just as a shadow indicates the real thing - its not perfect knowledge but it indicates enough to say that the cause is not the shadow"

Yet what aspect of material existence points towards it being the shadow in this equation? What particular things?

****** “Where did I come from” and what is the nature of the intelligence that drives and orders this creation – eg – the sun rises in the east and there is a complex arrangement for existence that indicates superior administration etc

"******Postdated cheques are not very reliable in either commerce or science - better to talk of what is rather than what could be (unless you are in the process of writing a sci-fi novel)"

Indeed it is true that I ventured into the speculative, however, it demonstrates that it is not absurd to think that it is possible to essentially create life out of the constituent parts. If such is completed - as I affirm it will - it will deal a serious blow to the necessity of there bieng something else but life in the creature.

***** True – just like if you could become your own father it would also rock some truths most people hold as foundational

"****Just like the connection between a moving car and a driver"

Save that when a car is destroyed, the driver still remains for all to see if he was not in it. When life is destroyed, the "liver" is not to be found.

***** that’s because the driver is subtle - actually the driver is eternal and only the car changes – we have experience of this when we grow from child hood to adulthood – we retain the same sense of self despite the body being completely reformed – the same process continues after death

"**** Atma means spirit, so it can be applied to either god or the living entity, but their are more definitive terms such as paramatma (super spirit) which indicates god - there are descriptions that state god is distinct from other eternal life forces because he maintains all other life"

But what of you spoke, the "living entity", is distinct from consciousness or not?

**** No, living entity means consciousness, god means superior consciousness

"****** Material desires that cannot be expressed through reality, in otherwords the desire to be completely seperate from god (ie Jadananda - the bliss of ignorance) cannot be manifest in the spiritual realm, hence we acquire a material identity as we fancy in a temporary world"

Yet this desire is both unneeded, as is material desires. If no such illusion existed, no such desires would be produced. In essence: A limited being, born in a "real universe" - that is, knowing it is not limited at all - would not be able to fathom of the desire for limitation.

***** we were not forced to come here (like we will be forced to die for eg) – we came here by free choice – without options how is possible to exhibit free will?

"******* the many potencies of fire was meant to indicate a variety of subtle and gross energies - smoke is the gross one - if that is true of fire, what to speak of god"

So God has many categories of energy is what you are saying?

**** Yes


"*******The point is that what a conscious entity values most is reciprocation (material acquisition is merely a means for reciprocation) - god shares a similar notion, although his reciprocation is not subject to the inebrieties of reciprocation that we are familiar with"

Whether this is true or not, however, is quite irrelevant to whether God is conscious. Moreover, reciprocation implies a lack of something. How can God lack and be perfect? He canont, lest he be imperfect.

****** His perfection goes on increasing – ours is subject to success and failure

"*******Summer is illusory when we consceive of it as an eternal constant season not subject to change (just like we conceive of the body as our eternal identity, despite a 100% track record to the contrary with every other living entity on the planet - ie illusion)"

Yet actually, nothing in this material universe is truly temporal or transient. Energy - which matter is composed of - is neither creatable or destroyable. Only the relations of energy can be changed, not the energy itself. Does not this imply -ultimate- realness to the material universe?

******* I never said that the ultimate energy of the material creation (which is actually divine because it is an energy of god – its actually eternal too) is illusory – yes the material world is real but it is only temporary, just like energy may swap forms thus what is cold hot one moment can transform something in to cold (ie its temporary)

"*******His ability is always constantly expanding his limits, that's why he can remain eternal and not suffer from boredom etc, and its also the dynamic principle of eternal existence"

Yet God could not have limits to expand if he is infinite, nor could it be at all "a cure for theo-ennui", because God cannot have resistances. How can a God place limits on himself, moreover, and still remain perfect?

******One moment his creation is more greater than him (like he can create something so big he cannot lift it) and the next moment he can be strong enough to lift it – in this way there is a constant competition between his potencies and his capacities, hence he is eternally expanding in all fronts – this is what it truly means to be infinite (infinite both in potency and capacity)

"*******The point is that just because god is better it doesn't mean he is "bigger" - he can be bigger than the biggest or smaller than the smallest and still retain his same potencies - "

Even so, please show me the organs of sense which God has?

*******Show you? If I said to you “Please show me george bush’s ears” are you influential enough to arrange for mr bush to visit me just so I can inspect his ears?
If you cannot do that with a mundane person like the president why do you ask me to do that with god?



"**** Therefore the first business of spiritual life is to read scripture and acquire some primary knowledge of god so you can actually know something about him - its just like a political advertising campaign for preseidency is useless unless people actually have a concept of the president (of course god doesn't require your vote - lol - its a bit of a sloppy analogy but hopefully it makes sense)"

Yet these scriptures should not exist if God wanted first reciprocity, as we'd have to, before even having the scriptures, know God, yet could not know God, as you said he hid without repiprocity! Moreover, how are we to be certain the scriptures are true? Most people who are both familiar with the scriptures and of a religious nature, get nothing out of such.

******That’s free will – god won’t force you – originally we operated out of a relationship of reciprocation but we chose something else that has landed us in material existence – scripture is actually a conscious representation of god – in other words if you read scripture with an adverse consciousness religion will appear like a bad choice – in other words it depends on consciousness as opposed to intelligence to understand scripture, hence the basic principles of religion are moral laws just to keep people’s consciousness on a suitable level (although by free will you are free to ignore that)


"******Most definitely"

Yet is not worth dependent on value? Which is dependent on need or greed? Both which depend on lack?

******That’s our experience of need because we have to seek things outside of ourself for satisfaction (in otherwords we have no intrinsic creational potency like god, we are always dependant on phenomena outside of ourself in both our liberated and conditioned states) – god is atmarama – self –satisfied – he doesn’t ultimately require anything since even if he lacks something he can manifest it anyway

"******the correct word translates as "simultaneous inconceivable oneness and difference" - in other words the factory is not actually independant of the factory owner because he controls it, but at the same time he exists outside of the factory independent of it"

When we speak of controlling orselves, do we split ourselves up into two distinct things? Or do we not conceive of it simply as the exercise of power on oneself, that is, to conform oneself to an idea one has put forth as valuable? Then if God is infinite, and must indeed be everything there is, then can matter be seperate and independent from God in even a relative sense, if it is God exercising control over himself?

******Control has many forms – like an expert teacher can obtain a result merely by raising an eyebrow that is the same as the result obtained by a buffalo herder with a stick – control means just that – you can control yourself

****The rest might come l;ater

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “How do you know he isn't?………”.

Re: Where is your evidence for the claim that ‘He is full of bliss’? I suppose you haven’t met your God in person yet! Is this true?


lightgigantic: “…well its better than talking in the absence of theoretical knowledge .... which is a waste of time - imagine if the rules for discussing science limited the reference to text books…… “.

Re: That is exactly what you’ve been demanding with regard to your sacred scripture!


lightgigantic: “…Then why is the word "vigraha" (form) tagged to the definition if it is irrelevant? As for the absence of the "tons of descriptions" I guess you haven't even picked up a scripture - but then its pointless to go into advanced mathematics for a person who is struggling with the basic definitions of 1-10……..”.

Re: Well I think it is tagged there, because the ancient gurus were not very careful in their wording, or were just philosophically innocent! Don’t you think so?


lightgigantic: “…What does that make your concoctions then? At least my theoretical knowledge is backed up by numerous authorities in the field - you simply try to bring transcendental objects within the purview of your limited senses……..”.

Re: No! You are the one who is trying to give the transcendent a ‘vigraha’!


lightgigantic: “…The failure of your logic is that you apply the rules that govern your own existence to god's existence - in other words you assume that god is just like you, or perhaps a little better - actually he is the supreme entity and is never accepted as such a mundane creature by scripture…….”.

Re: My logic is not a failure. You supreme Deity is a loser, and cannot hold Himself together upon close examination!

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

"**** all parts belong to god (ultimately) although there is the facility for the jiva or living entity to think otherwise under the guise of illusion, but in the proper vision of things all parts are seen to belong to god (in otherwords just like all parts of a body that co-operate equal a functional body) – part can mean either rebellious or co-operative because of free will"

Do you claim that the unity with God supercedes the separateness? Or that they are both equally real?

"*******At the least it is distinct from matter"

No. As noted, I view consciousness as a relational entity stemming from matter. To separate the two would be akin to separating the world into "the green" and "the non-green".

"******Then you are left with a mysterious cause because we cann not trace the cause of them – either effects have a conscious or a mysterious cause if you trace them far enough, and the revealing of this mystery is the fruit of the successful performance of service to god"

Do you allow for the mystery to be genuinely resolved by a non-conscious movement? Or categorically deny the possibility of such?

"******Then lets trace this one out as an example – what is the cause of the changes perceivable in the atmosphere"

The movement of gases and the flux of global temperatures.

"******But there is no question of the phenomena occurring without conscious endeavour – its just like swinging a baseball bat to hit a ball and saying the bat is the ultimate cause"

Tell me, is it "caused by consciousness", when we plant a seed and watch it grow? Because in both this case and the laboratory atmospheric tests, we find that only the capacity for it to start is given by consciousness, the material results are all material processes. Moreover, there are often times when a seed is simply carried by the wind, as well as the wind coming about simply by gases! Consciousness must mimic a material process in order to produce results, not the other way around.

"******Well why don’t you fix people before that? Actually it illustrates the powerful nature of consciousness – the moment it leaves the entire machine of the body becomes useless"

We are incapable, at present, of fixing organic matter at the level necessary to stop death as an inevitability of our present conditions. We are, however, progressing more and more towards that every day.

"****** “Where did I come from” and what is the nature of the intelligence that drives and orders this creation – eg – the sun rises in the east and there is a complex arrangement for existence that indicates superior administration etc"

'Where did I come from?' could be answered with many philosophic and scientific answers that do not at all relate back to a god. Similarly, what intelligence do you find in these natural processes? What teleological cause? Might you explain what aspect specifically must be accounted for by consciousness?

"***** True – just like if you could become your own father it would also rock some truths most people hold as foundational"

This is somewhat of a different argument, on the foundation that it is paradoxical to assume one can be one's own father, but not paradoxical to say we can create life through making it from the atoms up.

"***** that’s because the driver is subtle - actually the driver is eternal and only the car changes – we have experience of this when we grow from child hood to adulthood – we retain the same sense of self despite the body being completely reformed – the same process continues after death"

Growth and death cannot be equated. Whereas in the case of growth, that which is destroyed is replaced, with death, that which is destroyed is not. That is to say, though we never inhabit the same body twice, it is the continuum of existence that allows us to retain a selfhood, as well as memories of past states and a recognition of the growth process. With death no such continuum persists and thus the death of the individual and the death of his body. There is no "liver" to be found because the "liver" is in the body. Moreover, if we change drastically enough, our identity can be mistaken by another. Similarly, without our memory - such as in the case of amnesiacs - we forget said identity and bceome, in essence, different people.

"**** No, living entity means consciousness, god means superior consciousness"

Understood now. Thanks for the definition.

"***** we were not forced to come here (like we will be forced to die for eg) – we came here by free choice – without options how is possible to exhibit free will?"

Why would we need to express free-will (which you have still not proven exists) if our unity was previously with God? Where would that "free-will" stem from? The notion of "distinctness"? If God is perfect unity, how would we "emerge" from God and "choose" to be different? There'd be no idea of "differentness" to speak of. We could not even wish for such differentness, as there'd be no way to come to realize this, nor a reason to be distinct from God, nor free-will to speak of, as we'd share in God's perfection. In fact, it would be even fallacious to speak of ourselves as "I" as distinct from God.

Postulating free-will as a source of life is like postulating a need for winter coats in the summer. Without cold weather, winter coats become absurd.

"So God has many categories of energy is what you are saying?

**** Yes"

What are all his categories?

"****** His perfection goes on increasing – ours is subject to success and failure"

Of his perfection increases, then it was not perfect to begin with. It implies that a second ago, God was less perfect than he was now. To be "less perfect" is a fallacious conception of perfection. Imperfection must be absolute completion, beyond which there is nothing greater. If God can increase in the magnitude of his greatness, he is not God.

"******* I never said that the ultimate energy of the material creation (which is actually divine because it is an energy of god – its actually eternal too) is illusory – yes the material world is real but it is only temporary, just like energy may swap forms thus what is cold hot one moment can transform something in to cold (ie its temporary)"

Yet if everything that supports material existence is real, how is "material existence" just "temporary" and not "real even though in flux"? What makes "flux" less real than "staticness"?

"******One moment his creation is more greater than him (like he can create something so big he cannot lift it) and the next moment he can be strong enough to lift it – in this way there is a constant competition between his potencies and his capacities, hence he is eternally expanding in all fronts – this is what it truly means to be infinite (infinite both in potency and capacity)"

In either case, it speaks of a lack of perfection. If for but one seocnd, God is incapable of doing something, his perfection ceases. Saying that he simply "becomes stronger" is absurd, because again, it means he was "weak" at one point. Similarly, it would not be a "rock bigger than he could lift", if he has the capacity to grow stronger. It would always be a "rock that God could lift". Similarly, if God is all ready infinite, then he cannot grow "more". Infinity, by definition, is the largest one can be.

"*******Show you? If I said to you “Please show me george bush’s ears” are you influential enough to arrange for mr bush to visit me just so I can inspect his ears?
If you cannot do that with a mundane person like the president why do you ask me to do that with god?"

Presumably, the sense organs of God, by virtue of God's infinity, would be present in such a way that the seeker of them would be practically incapable of not finding them. You also seem to have knowledge of them. So if you do, please show me where it is? It is like saying, otherwise, "I know where the pencil is, but I will not show you." Well then, how am I to be sure you are not lying?

"******That’s free will – god won’t force you – originally we operated out of a relationship of reciprocation but we chose something else that has landed us in material existence – scripture is actually a conscious representation of god – in other words if you read scripture with an adverse consciousness religion will appear like a bad choice – in other words it depends on consciousness as opposed to intelligence to understand scripture, hence the basic principles of religion are moral laws just to keep people’s consciousness on a suitable level (although by free will you are free to ignore that)"

Is this not like saying "you must believe in order to be able to believe"? That is to say, unless you take what is taken at face value and accept it, you will not get anything out of it, because it only makes sense if you believe that it makes sense? In essence, that it is nonsense, but we can work with the system if we simply believe what it says? Well, isn't that rather like what liar's do? Because if one believes a liar's lies, one still works within his system and everything makes sense, and even when met with the truth, one can deny it and simply claim that the liar is right.

"******That’s our experience of need because we have to seek things outside of ourself for satisfaction (in otherwords we have no intrinsic creational potency like god, we are always dependant on phenomena outside of ourself in both our liberated and conditioned states) – god is atmarama – self –satisfied – he doesn’t ultimately require anything since even if he lacks something he can manifest it anyway "

Then he cannot have a sense of "worth". God cannot think himself "great" because he is not part of the "game" that makes worth possible. He cannot value himself, as he is not lacking anything, including himself.

"******Control has many forms – like an expert teacher can obtain a result merely by raising an eyebrow that is the same as the result obtained by a buffalo herder with a stick – control means just that – you can control yourself "

Control does indeed have many forms, yet the control of matter by God does not imply the distinctness of matter from God.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

"**** all parts belong to god (ultimately) although there is the facility for the jiva or living entity to think otherwise under the guise of illusion, but in the proper vision of things all parts are seen to belong to god (in otherwords just like all parts of a body that co-operate equal a functional body) – part can mean either rebellious or co-operative because of free will"

Do you claim that the unity with God supercedes the separateness? Or that they are both equally real?

***** There is a greater ontological precedent to being united with god (not that you become god of course) than being seperated from him


"*******At the least it is distinct from matter"

No. As noted, I view consciousness as a relational entity stemming from matter. To separate the two would be akin to separating the world into "the green" and "the non-green".

*****The difference is that the world can be shown to house things both green and non green - the same can not be shown with matter because the "material composition" of consciousness is not revealed to us - the results of consciousness however are perceivable in matter, even if the cause is not - its just like a shirt moves when a person is wearing it but the shirt doesn't budge when it is in the closet - if you attribute life to the shirt you don't actually see what is actually moving it


"******Then you are left with a mysterious cause because we cann not trace the cause of them – either effects have a conscious or a mysterious cause if you trace them far enough, and the revealing of this mystery is the fruit of the successful performance of service to god"

Do you allow for the mystery to be genuinely resolved by a non-conscious movement? Or categorically deny the possibility of such?

******Well until you can come up with evidence of a material cause for consciousness you only have a theory, so if you want to use that theory as a launching pad for disproving the existence of god you should be aware that you are jumping the gun a bit - the world is literally teeming with comsciousness, you cannot even walk 10 meteres without bumping into a couple of thousand living entities - if life came from matter surely it would be an easily perceivable phenomena

"******Then lets trace this one out as an example – what is the cause of the changes perceivable in the atmosphere"

The movement of gases and the flux of global temperatures.

*****What causes the flux of global temperatures?

"******But there is no question of the phenomena occurring without conscious endeavour – its just like swinging a baseball bat to hit a ball and saying the bat is the ultimate cause"

Tell me, is it "caused by consciousness", when we plant a seed and watch it grow? Because in both this case and the laboratory atmospheric tests, we find that only the capacity for it to start is given by consciousness, the material results are all material processes. Moreover, there are often times when a seed is simply carried by the wind, as well as the wind coming about simply by gases! Consciousness must mimic a material process in order to produce results, not the other way around.

****The results of consciousness can be perceived in matter, because consciousness is superior (consciousness moves matter) - as for the seed the growing process happens outside of our conscious contribution - like the the fact that the government offers some facility for your development in the form of society does not ultinately affect the nature of whether you are conscious or not, even though it may contribute to your development - it is like the difference between being a facillitator and a creator - even in genetics they are only facillitators because they must begin with life to create life - otherwise why can;t a tree grow from a stone that looks like a seed?


"******Well why don’t you fix people before that? Actually it illustrates the powerful nature of consciousness – the moment it leaves the entire machine of the body becomes useless"

We are incapable, at present, of fixing organic matter at the level necessary to stop death as an inevitability of our present conditions. We are, however, progressing more and more towards that every day.

***** What is the evidence of that success? The material world still has an unbeaten track record of 100% mortality ...

"****** “Where did I come from” and what is the nature of the intelligence that drives and orders this creation – eg – the sun rises in the east and there is a complex arrangement for existence that indicates superior administration etc"

'Where did I come from?' could be answered with many philosophic and scientific answers that do not at all relate back to a god. Similarly, what intelligence do you find in these natural processes? What teleological cause? Might you explain what aspect specifically must be accounted for by consciousness?

****** I guess if you can draw on some experience of order and function being outside of a conscious contribution you may have a leg to stand on - as for philosophy, there are so many philosophies that reflect individual free will - all these things, observation of the world and intelligent inquiry can only bring you to the platform of having the confidence to apply religious principles (which lead to the observation of god's transcendence) - so there is a lot of room to go many directions, even in the name of transcendental philosophy

"***** True – just like if you could become your own father it would also rock some truths most people hold as foundational"

This is somewhat of a different argument, on the foundation that it is paradoxical to assume one can be one's own father, but not paradoxical to say we can create life through making it from the atoms up.

*****It is paradoxical if you understand that the living entity has no such capacity because it belongs to their father

"***** that’s because the driver is subtle - actually the driver is eternal and only the car changes – we have experience of this when we grow from child hood to adulthood – we retain the same sense of self despite the body being completely reformed – the same process continues after death"

Growth and death cannot be equated. Whereas in the case of growth, that which is destroyed is replaced, with death, that which is destroyed is not.

*****Unless it happens on a platform that requires the application of an epistemology to p[erceive it - just like if you don't apply the epistemology of physics you cannot perceive electrons, even if you have a very good microscope, because electrons are invisible and perceived by the effects they emmanate while passing through a gas cloud

That is to say, though we never inhabit the same body twice, it is the continuum of existence that allows us to retain a selfhood, as well as memories of past states and a recognition of the growth process. With death no such continuum persists and thus the death of the individual and the death of his body. There is no "liver" to be found because the "liver" is in the body.

*****Well suppose you saw a persons shirt and by the movement of the shirt you could detect the person was alive - when they took off the shirt they would appear to have "died" - in other words it requires a particular vision to perceive it - it can begin but observing that the body changes COMPLETELY from birth to death while the self remains unchanged

Moreover, if we change drastically enough, our identity can be mistaken by another.

*****That's illusion and not reality

Similarly, without our memory - such as in the case of amnesiacs - we forget said identity and bceome, in essence, different people.

****** That is also illusion, since people with amnesia often recover at least partially from their amnesia - it illustrates the difference between the mind/intelligence and the soul - unless the soul was in a superior state how would it be possible for a person who has amnesia (ie their mind/intelligence gets completely reformed) and recover from it unless the "self" had access to a higher sense of self than the miind/intelligence?




"***** we were not forced to come here (like we will be forced to die for eg) – we came here by free choice – without options how is possible to exhibit free will?"

Why would we need to express free-will (which you have still not proven exists) if our unity was previously with God?

****How could it be free will unless we had that free option to be even seperate from god?

Where would that "free-will" stem from?

****God's free will - the old parable "made in the image of god" means we have the same quality not quantity - god however is unique because he is "svarat" or completely independent

The notion of "distinctness"? If God is perfect unity, how would we "emerge" from God and "choose" to be different?

****If we abandon god he does not diminsih and if we unite with god we do not add anything to him

There'd be no idea of "differentness" to speak of. We could not even wish for such differentness, as there'd be no way to come to realize this, nor a reason to be distinct from God, nor free-will to speak of, as we'd share in God's perfection.

**** We share in god's perfection by exercising the same "world view' as he does - in otherwords we properly apply our free will - just like there is normal socirty for people who properly exercise their free will and the jail for others

In fact, it would be even fallacious to speak of ourselves as "I" as distinct from God.

*****unity with god is not a merging but a co-operative unity - just like borrowing or adding a candle from the sun doesn't accomplish anything in terms of dimunition or increase

Postulating free-will as a source of life is like postulating a need for winter coats in the summer. Without cold weather, winter coats become absurd.

**** I am not sure what your logic is here?



"So God has many categories of energy is what you are saying?

**** Yes"

What are all his categories?

*****they are numerous but on a very simple level they are the external(material), the internal (spiritual) and the marginal (the living entity which is seeking the shelter of either of these two) - on top of all this god exists independent of these just as fire exists independent of the light and heat it emmanates since it is the source of these phenomena


"****** His perfection goes on increasing – ours is subject to success and failure"

Of his perfection increases, then it was not perfect to begin with.

**** No - it just goes from good to better

It implies that a second ago, God was less perfect than he was now. To be "less perfect" is a fallacious conception of perfection.

**** There may be many perfect car mechanics but some are more perfect than others - their is variety in perfection - like for instance you can visit the "masters of the renaissnace" exhibition and see many examples of different people who were considered perfect

Imperfection must be absolute completion, beyond which there is nothing greater. If God can increase in the magnitude of his greatness, he is not God.

***** If god cannot increase in greatness he is not god - the alternative is our own existence in matter which causes us to (materially) wink out like a retinal after image on a night sky


"******* I never said that the ultimate energy of the material creation (which is actually divine because it is an energy of god – its actually eternal too) is illusory – yes the material world is real but it is only temporary, just like energy may swap forms thus what is cold hot one moment can transform something in to cold (ie its temporary)"

Yet if everything that supports material existence is real, how is "material existence" just "temporary" and not "real even though in flux"? What makes "flux" less real than "staticness"?

***** Just like a snake actually exists and a rope actually exists, but the rope that looks like a snake actually has no existence - in otherwords when the conditioned entity comes in contact with matter they form the wrong idea which is the source of all the problems


"******One moment his creation is more greater than him (like he can create something so big he cannot lift it) and the next moment he can be strong enough to lift it – in this way there is a constant competition between his potencies and his capacities, hence he is eternally expanding in all fronts – this is what it truly means to be infinite (infinite both in potency and capacity)"

In either case, it speaks of a lack of perfection. If for but one seocnd, God is incapable of doing something, his perfection ceases.

**** How is that? One moment his potency increases by overcoming his capacity and the next his capacity overcomes his potency - it is the perfect explanation of perfection

Saying that he simply "becomes stronger" is absurd, because again, it means he was "weak" at one point.

*****No it means that he created something greater than his potency

Similarly, it would not be a "rock bigger than he could lift", if he has the capacity to grow stronger.

****unless his qualities are eternally expanding

It would always be a "rock that God could lift".

*****That is true in one sense - the potency never actually succeeds in overcoming the capacity of god

Similarly, if God is all ready infinite, then he cannot grow "more". Infinity, by definition, is the largest one can be.

*****Infinity means it has no end - so both his capacities and his potencies must have no end


"*******Show you? If I said to you “Please show me george bush’s ears” are you influential enough to arrange for mr bush to visit me just so I can inspect his ears?
If you cannot do that with a mundane person like the president why do you ask me to do that with god?"

Presumably, the sense organs of God, by virtue of God's infinity, would be present in such a way that the seeker of them would be practically incapable of not finding them.

**** Just as a person cannot see a rope of they think it is a snake

You also seem to have knowledge of them. So if you do, please show me where it is? It is like saying, otherwise, "I know where the pencil is, but I will not show you."

****The point is that the knowledge relies on an epistemology - in otherwords suppose a rocket scientist showed his "evidence" of rocket technology to a fruit vendor - he would probably argue that it is just a bunch of squiggles and numbers and not evidence of anything

Well then, how am I to be sure you are not lying?

*****Apply the appropriate epistemology and come to your own conclusions - understanding the qualities of the correct epistemology is a priimary foundation


"******That’s free will – god won’t force you – originally we operated out of a relationship of reciprocation but we chose something else that has landed us in material existence – scripture is actually a conscious representation of god – in other words if you read scripture with an adverse consciousness religion will appear like a bad choice – in other words it depends on consciousness as opposed to intelligence to understand scripture, hence the basic principles of religion are moral laws just to keep people’s consciousness on a suitable level (although by free will you are free to ignore that)"

Is this not like saying "you must believe in order to be able to believe"? That is to say, unless you take what is taken at face value and accept it, you will not get anything out of it, because it only makes sense if you believe that it makes sense?

**** Is it possible to understand any subtle knowledge like physics unless you accept it as fact beforehand? IN otherwords you could perceive the nature of general representations of physics which could lead to a nurturing of curiousity or inquiry to continue further, - until you reach that stage nothing happens - and it s not like that one moment of "surrender" takes you all the way to the conclusions of knowledge - their is acceptance followed by application which leads to further acceptance and further application etc etc - it generally comes in gradual steps

In essence, that it is nonsense, but we can work with the system if we simply believe what it says?

***** Only if the application bears results

Well, isn't that rather like what liar's do? Because if one believes a liar's lies, one still works within his system and everything makes sense, and even when met with the truth, one can deny it and simply claim that the liar is right.

****But the truth is superior to lies - like if I convince you to jump out the window to fly it doesn't actually bear results

"******That’s our experience of need because we have to seek things outside of ourself for satisfaction (in otherwords we have no intrinsic creational potency like god, we are always dependant on phenomena outside of ourself in both our liberated and conditioned states) – god is atmarama – self –satisfied – he doesn’t ultimately require anything since even if he lacks something he can manifest it anyway "

Then he cannot have a sense of "worth". God cannot think himself "great" because he is not part of the "game" that makes worth possible. He cannot value himself, as he is not lacking anything, including himself.

*****You are applying the ontology ("the game') of our own worth in material life as an indication of god's - just because the material world is a rat race doesn't mean the spiritual world is too

"******Control has many forms – like an expert teacher can obtain a result merely by raising an eyebrow that is the same as the result obtained by a buffalo herder with a stick – control means just that – you can control yourself "

Control does indeed have many forms, yet the control of matter by God does not imply the distinctness of matter from God.

*****Put quite simply, matter doesn't have the same qualities as god hence it is distinct - it however indicates god's presence just like heat indicates the presence of fire and is catergorised as something distinct from fire even though it is inextricably connected with the fire that emmanates it

 

[AAF]

Prince_James: “Yes, we can say that the infinitely small is greater than nothingness - in that it is not nothingness, but substantial, albeit the smallest substantial one could conceive of - but does this regulate nothingness to the true status of infinitely small? As I argued, I think not. What say you, as it is not clear if you agree or disagree at this point………..”.

Re: Nothingness, of course, is not the infinitely small. It’s the absolutely small; and hence it can be used to limit the infinitely small. And so, it seems to me, we agree or very close to agree on this point.


Prince_James: “…Whereas I do not deny the truthfulness of your affirmation that "[...] the infinitely small is also the ever-increasing relative property of small quantities as they approach zero," I would be most interested in your response to this question? What is the quotient of 1/infinity?……….”.

Re: I would say it’s ZERO, according to these rules:
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBrowsers/2413/TypesOfInfinity.asp
And that is why it's possible to obtain the ultimate limit (i.e. nothingness) by dividing some given quantity ad infinitum.


Prince_James: “…Oh, it is a most sublime system on its own and a great feat of mathematical achievement and very easy to grasp. But I think it merely fallacious to take essentially a plane-geometry and to postulate that its axioms hold true in a real world and, furthermore, that one can even think in pure Euclidean terms. For again, it seems rather impossible for us to think in two dimensions alone, and as noted, it would seem that physically, it would be quite impossible for two dimensional shape - or anything two dimensional - to exist in a three dimensional world……….”.

Re: Euclid’s ELEMENTS is not only about circles, squares, and the like, but also about spheres, cubes, and the like. And so this sublime type of geometry is fully equipped to deal effectively with every problem in the three-dimensional SPACE, i.e. absolute space.


Prince_James: “…It would seem to me that your conception of infinity implying an "ideal limit" is incorrect. Unless I am mistaking your terminology, an "ideal limit" cannot be present in infinity, on the foundation that infinity is defined as "without limit". Similarly it would seem that you are wrong in affirming that if indeed infinity had an ideal limit, it could be construed as "the largest space of all spaces", when in fact it not simply that, but "the largest space of all spaces without end or boundaries". That is to say, it is not simply gigantic, but extends without end, or that gigantism on a cosmic scale would not suffice for something to be construed as infinite. Moreover, even if we do agree that infinity has an "ideal limit" which is not as I suggest "without limit", and this "ideal limit" cannot exist, that seems to be all the more proof for infinity, by virtue that even a concept of it being limited by its ideal is made absurd…..”.


Re: The key term, here, is IDEAL. As defined earlier, the ideal limit is the limit towards which the strength of the infinite series’ main attribute tends to increase. The closer an element to this ideal limit; the stronger its relative attribute with respect to preceding elements. Consider the series (1, 2, 3 …). The biggest number of all natural numbers is the ideal limit of this series, because the true elements (i.e. the natural numbers) get bigger and bigger and bigger indefinitely as they approach this ideal limit. In the same way, the largest space of all space is the IDEAL limit of infinite space, because it’s the attribute whose relative strength gets stronger and stronger and stronger as an endless series of spatial volumes or sizes approaches this ideal limit indefinitely. It should be obvious, therefore, that the concept of ideal limits is very important for analyzing infinite series and identifying clearly and precisely their varying properties or attributes. By contrast, phrases like ‘without limit’ and ‘without boundary’ is mere tautologies and different names for infinity and shed little or no light at all with regards to the chief attribute or characteristic of the infinite series or the type of infinity in question.


Prince_James: “…But yes, obviously I concur that all the elements of infinite space exist ontologically at this moment. And as to a future eternity, you are correct. By definition of it being in the future, none of aspects of eternity in the future exist. We can indeed speak then of all concepts related to a future eternity as ideal, for though they are not manifest, they are demanded to manifest eventually, though never to be realized in full, lest it not be a true infinity of time forward from the present moment…….”.

Re: That is true. The key word, here, is IDEAL. Future eternity is always ideal, and can never be realized as actual entity, not even one single moment of it. That is because, no matter how long the world exists, recent past time is simply added to past eternity; and future eternity gets none of it!


Prince_James: “…This is an interesting conception, but I am not certain I can at present concur with you, although your argument here presented is unique and intriguing. For whereas some systems do have an ideal that is logically consistent with the property, it is hard to associate an ideal to this perfect smell, on the foundation that it would seem impossible to give a definition of what this ideal is. Whereas i t is sensible to speak of an ideal of space, it does not seem to be of smell. Perhaps if you were able to present the defining characteristics of this perfect smell”.

Re: The perfect smell itself is the ideal, here; and hence there is no need to associate any ideal with it. More importantly, it’s possible to have many different kinds of good smell, each has its own absolute ideal. Since ideals are always defined in terms of one single attribute. And good smell has many defining attributes.

 

[lightgigantic]

AAF


lightgigantic: “How do you know he isn't?………”.

Re: Where is your evidence for the claim that ‘He is full of bliss’? I suppose you haven’t met your God in person yet! Is this true?

***** How could you possibly detect whether I am lying not whether I answered yes or no? Without a foundation of theoretical knowledge all inquiry is just like leaving one dark corridor to enter another


lightgigantic: “…well its better than talking in the absence of theoretical knowledge .... which is a waste of time - imagine if the rules for discussing science limited the reference to text books…… “.

Re: That is exactly what you’ve been demanding with regard to your sacred scripture!

***** My apologies - it was a typo - it should read "imagine if the rules for discussing science limited without the reference to text books[/I]……


lightgigantic: “…Then why is the word "vigraha" (form) tagged to the definition if it is irrelevant? As for the absence of the "tons of descriptions" I guess you haven't even picked up a scripture - but then its pointless to go into advanced mathematics for a person who is struggling with the basic definitions of 1-10……..”.

Re: Well I think it is tagged there, because the ancient gurus were not very careful in their wording, or were just philosophically innocent! Don’t you think so?

*****Basically all you are doing is stating what "you think so", you haven't even made an enquiry into the subject you are trying to debunk - it doesn't make for a very credible presentation


lightgigantic: “…What does that make your concoctions then? At least my theoretical knowledge is backed up by numerous authorities in the field - you simply try to bring transcendental objects within the purview of your limited senses……..”.

Re: No! You are the one who is trying to give the transcendent a ‘vigraha’!

******And you are the one who is not - the only difference is that your statements are backed up by your perception of what constitutes reality and my statements are backed up by those who have reached a consensus after indepth study and application of the subject


lightgigantic: “…The failure of your logic is that you apply the rules that govern your own existence to god's existence - in other words you assume that god is just like you, or perhaps a little better - actually he is the supreme entity and is never accepted as such a mundane creature by scripture…….”.

Re: My logic is not a failure. You supreme Deity is a loser, and cannot hold Himself together upon close examination!

******But thats the point you are failing to address - you are examining god on a basis of your examination of your own limited existence - if you are not actually god by any stretch of the definition, what is the value of your "close examinations"



lightgigantic: “…Matter has form - the question is does transcendental things have form too - you cannot answer this question however because it requires a foundation of theoretical knowledge, which you seem to think you are qualified to override……..”.

Re: If this supposed theoretical knowledge of yours tags a ‘vigraha’ to those theological things, then you should at once hand it over to the garbage man in your area!

*******


lightgigantic: “…I am just trying to help you formulate a logical argument - at the moment you are accepting transcendental objects as the binary opposite of matter in a primitive fashion - so you speculate that transcendental things are completely the opposite of material things - the question is that they merely be different as opposed to opposite - in other words the examination of material phenomena is no qualification for elucidating the nature of the transcendental…….”.

Re: Thanks, priest! That is very kind of you! But if your supposed theoretical knowledge tags, in a primitive fashion (so to speak), a ‘vigraha’ to those theological things, then you should without hesitation hand it over to the garbage collector in your area!
http://vedabase.net/v/vigraha

*****Actually its interesting that you think the form of god is fit for the garbage when the material form we exist in will end up either as bird or worm stool or ashes -


lightgigantic: “…omg - another wikipedia "authority"……”.

Re: What is wrong with it? It’s obviously more reliable and more up-to-date than your ancient books.

*****I guess if you don't find anything impractical about accepting definitions drawn from what anyone has said about anything there's no real problem


lightgigantic: “…Perfect in understanding god? Why not? To the degree that they are surrendered to the processes of understanding god - its not that everyone is equally qualified in understanding god because not everyone is equally surrendered - in fact there are many so called intelligent persons who are adverse to the notion of god - again , because you lack a foundation of theoretical knowledge you cannot see the variety of the category and tend to just blindly write off the whole thing, much like a gullible person who blindly accepts everything…….”.

Re: I would prefer to have you branded as ‘gullible’, even though you’re quite intelligent, because of your blind trust in the authority of your ancient and somewhat naive gurus!

******All because I don't blindly trust you - you haven't even picked up a book about a "guru" - your philosophy seems to be "I know what I like and I like what I know"


lightgigantic: “…Well do you believe in the established authorities of any branch of knowledge or do you think that its impossible for anyone to be more intelligent than yourself? For instance is it irrational to accept the authorities of astronomy in understanding astronomy (particularly if one doesn't know the first thing about astronomy) - if not why is that any authority in the name of religion must immediately be disbanded (unless of course you have a complete absence of theoretical knowledge and can only blindly discriminate on the matter)”.

Re: Every branch of knowledge worthy of its name must have a primary and accessible standard of reference to validate its claims. And so for astronomy and natural sciences in general, the final authority is not the practitioners or the experts or the textbooks, but the ever-open book of nature. But your religious field has no such open reference and its claims of knowledge and wisdom rely solely on the bogus assumption of special truths accessible only to very privileged priesthood. It’s, therefore, a bogus and worthless authority.



****Sounds like you just gave a very accurate definition of contemporary science