lightgigantic:
"****What is that "center" you refer to"
In a system defined as having no boundaries, every point, by being equidistant to said non-existent boundaries, is the centre. This centre would be by necessity composed of an infinitely small point. Beyond this, there is no significance.
"***Falsity is not always the opposite of truth, it is merely different - particularly when you want to examine the details - for instance if I told you it was false that the woman had $100 it wouldn't explain how much money she had, only that it wasn't $100"
It would, however, affirm that "it is non-existent that the woman has 100 dollars". Falsehood may not explain what the truth is, but it is the opposite of truth. That is to say, not all pairs are "either or", but all falsehood is non-existent and opposite of truth.
"***Then nothing is not an absolute term that exists out of binary definitions because it is fully defined by somethingness"
When something does not exist, the only way to speak of it is in the absence of something, yes. But this is because its category precludes speaking of it directly. That being said, we can define anything which is something as the opposite of nothing. "I did not do nothing today" translates into "I did something today".
"***therefore it is a binary definition"
I never claimed it was anything but a binary definition to somethingness.
Only that this binary definition must be real.
"***as above - all this indicates that applying a binary definition to transcendental by examining the material is not adequate"
In what way is this not adequate? Moreover, I am not claiming to study the transcendental - remember, I have no conception of such, and do not accord it reality - but existence v. non-existence and the cause for each and the necssities of eternity and such.
"***But if the king is ultimately unconscious and impersonal there are no forces of impersonal management - inotherwords the impersonal interaction is dependant on teh personal existence of the source"
That wholly depends on a conception of will behind all acts. You are presuming your position is correct to prove your position.
"***No it is a side aspect, just like the sunshine is a side energy ofd the sun globe - it represents the potency of eternity, and a living entity that chooses to merge in to it eventually falls down from it because there is no scope for its interactaction - inother words its just like a person may lock themselves in a room, particularly if they are distressed, but eventuallythey will get bored and come out"
'No scope for its interaction'? How so?
"****unless one is prepared to apply the epistemology for determining the reality of god and his abode one run's the risk of relying on one's mundane normative understanding of reality - inotherwords relying on binary definitions based on the material world will not uncover the nature of the spiritual world because it is the material world that is an effect of spirit and not vice versa"
Presuming that we can even give justification to the claims of a spirit world, which we have not come to yet. Moreover, it is only through independent, philosophical investigation, that this spirit side can be understood if it does exist.
If my "mundane normative understanding" is lacking, tell me where it is here?
"***It could be helpful if there was evidence of order existing outside of a creator (without relying on an effect that's cause is too mysterious for us to determine)"
We'll get to that later.
"***Well without relying on sciencefictional personalities, is it possible, considering the rate that the ocean is being filled? IN otherwords an infinite endeavour for an infinte time does not grant results unless the doer is unlimited (interesting that you spontaneously called upon a person with god like capacities to do the job)"
It is possible, but remote. Also one would die far before one has completed the job. But even if the job could never be completed, one's scope of knowledge would increase according to the time spent thinking over eternity. But yes, the being itself would have to at least be immortal to do so.
"*****The point is the god has discretion as to what effects follow what causes"
Actually, he would not. If cause causes something, it causes something because of itself, not because of an outside effort. God -might- be able to determine the natural laws of science, though, but even then, that is suspect, as they are relational entities which may have their result in the nature of relation.
"***Then you have to establish how our human nature is unlimited and the cause of all causes - granted what you say bears some truth - within the effect one can find traces of the cause, but it stretches things to say that the effect is as good as the cause (if it were so what would be the distinction between cause and effect?)"
Our human nature is not unlimited in all areas. We are clearly limited beings in most. But when one is dealing with necessary truth, we are dealing with an area where even the limited can become unlimited, by virtue of the fact that the necessary truth can unequivocally be found by it's ability to prove itself. That is to say, it could not be any way but without proving what is actually true or by not even speaking of what one has started out with.
I think I gave an example form the Law of Identity. That is a great, and classical, example of one of these necessary truths.
Moreover, it is not necessary that humans be "the cause of all causes", only that we can realize "the cause of all causes" in necessity.
"***Don't know on what basis you say he could not be eternal - I mean it is pretty difficult for you to establish exactly what is eternal in this creation let alone drawing up a list of what in includes and excludes - particularly if you want to exclude an item that you previously declare that cannot be known - as for knowing god you are right that he can not be known by empiricism, he can be known if he chooses to reveal himself - this is the distinction between knowing material things and conscious things and such an epistemology even holds up if one wants to directly perceive conscious entities of this world, like the president for eg"
It is very easy to prove what is and what isn't eternal. If something is not necessary, then it was at one time non-existent. This is by virtue of the fact that all things are either necessary, possible, or impossible. All limited and contingent things are possible, if God is such, then he is not eternal. If God is necessary, on the other hand, then he is not limited and can be known purely from necessary truth. If he is impossible, he simply doesn't exist.
Moreover, I only claimed that God cannot be known if he as you described. Not that God cannot be known if he is based on the absolute.
"***No NO NO - it is a random collection of matter and you are attributing its creation to an illusory authority that you have not even met"
If causality does not exist, I assent to your claim. If it does, then no.
"****So if god never experiences any dissatisfaction with his potencies, yet his potencies are increasing, is that lacking?"
Yes. Just as Bill Gates probably will never feel any dissatisfaction with his wealth's potency, yet he does not have all the money in the world, and could become richer by an infinite amount. That is to say, perfection is not to be found in any limitation whatsoever, regardless of pain suffered.
"****The same with any other epistemology - whether it grants the established ontology"
Established by whom?
"***That is the universal form - the universal form is what enabled arjuna to see anything and everything, from the present future and past, in one location - in the BG god talks about his form in many ways - one word is avyayatma - his atma (self) is avyaya (unlimited) - this doesn't necessarily mean that he is off infinite proportions, although if need be god can manifest that form, as he did to arjuna with the universal form, if required - arjuna requested him to show that form as evidence that krishna is god, so krishna obliged - so if someone says thatthey are god you can test them by asking to see their universal form"
Is this his ultimate form?
"****Its transcendental if it is related to one's constitutional position as a servant of god and it is material if it is related to our endeavour to be an enjoyer of inferior nature"
So one can have thoughts made of matter and other thoughts made of transcendence?
"*****I never claimed that mysterious causes were conscious - I was indicating how relyin g on effects that have a mysterious cause (such as the universe is not directed by intelligence) does not establish how order can arise from matter - it would be more truthful to not depart further from "we do not know what drives the universe" rather than advocating "theer is no conscious direction in the universe")"
I am glad you assent to this. However, we shall discuss whether or not one can indeed proclaim that there is no God behind the actions later on, with my argument from order and from casuality and other such things.
"***Then why don't dead people produce life - I think to establish what you were advocating you would have to give a chemical synopsis of life - which to date has drawn a 100% failure rate"
Save for the fact that we have all ready created virii from scratch and one day soon will create amoeba and bacteria. But why don't dead people produce life? Because they don't have sex. Their systems are also rotting away.
"***Thinking indicates consciousness, even if a person is only thinking about plastic bags"
It does, but the impetus to this thought can be material, hence, the causal connections that go back ad infinitum.
"***Fire and heat appear simultaneously just like consciousness and life "
But is it not the flame that causes the heat? Though they may appear simulteneous, the heat depends on the flame for its existence, whereas the flame (whilst obviously having to be hot) is not caused by the heat which it emanates.
"***what do the logs represent in regards to the flow of thought? If water is the thinking process what are the logs? Ideas? I am not advocating that all ideas are eternal I am advocating that the process of consciousness is eternal"
The logs would be the individual thoughts. The thinking process/consciousness would be the river.
However, you have said that ideas are objects of thought which is a part of consciousness, no? Is not consciousness transcendental? Would not its products, such as thoughts, similarly be as such? But the thoughts are not eternal and thus a temporal transcendent phenomena.
"***To say that you would have to trace what th eessential quality of a living entity is both in their living and dead states"
THough the living entity would also have to be shown to have an existence first. That we'll have to get to.
"***Consciousness is distinct from thought - for instance if one's consciousness is habituated to lust one will automatically perceive things in a sexual manner - that does not mean that one is constantly thinking about the same object but merely that it is very easy for such a response to be triggerred - so spiritual consciousness is like that - it becomes very easy for such a person to think of god, just like it is very easy for a lusty man to think of sex"
So conscousness is that which perceives and makes thought? All right. But that being said, we still are dealing with thoughts being non-eternal, which is clearly the case.
"***It indicates that there is something more essential than a waking, dreaming or dreamless state since we can draw our resources to have an idea of "I" in all those states - I was dreaming, I was awake etcetc "
Would you not agree that if we are aware of something, that this necessitates an I? That it is simply awareness? Yes, of course one is still aware in eithe rstate, but in what way does this require anything but the fact that all thought requires a thinker? It does not prove a "superior thing", only that a mind is there, which of course it was!
In essence, it proves no spirit, simply that if one is aware, clearly there is a mind.
"****Just like the wind never actuallyinteracts with aroma yet according to its association it appears to smell fragrant or disgusting according to what it passes over"
The wind blows the exuded aroma from the substance, yet the spirit you are claiming does not even have an interaction with the mind/body at all, does not even blow whatsoever, so that the mind and body might be "smelled".
What does the spirit do
"***Still born babies "
Still born babies are not born with bodies capable of sustaining life. In fact, they have died all ready - in the womb.
"***Very little of contemporary science is directly witnessed and a majority of it is inferred - what's the difference?"
Scientific inferrence is based on evidence, repeatability, demonstration..."Will of God" is not.
"That is to say: Where is the will present in the universe?
***One can begin to answer that when they apply the relevant epistemology"
Then apply it and show.
"***So there is no example of order existing outside of consciousness in our experience but theoretically there could be so when we see the order of the universe it is a statement of insanity to attribute it to a conscious entity?"
No. I argue elsewhere differently.
"***So why do you advocate the order of the universe to arise from impersonal forces?"
This truth was not created by conciousness and displays order. It is also an example of a non-mysterious non-conscious thing.
"***So in otherwords all the big thinkers of the world striving to solve big problems should just throw in the towel because there is just as much chance (or perhaps even a greater chance) of randomness solving the issues as conscious endeavour?"
There is nothing that was implied in my statement to conclude this. Only that order is the -only- possibility. That humans have problems that are to be solved by humans is a totally different, non-related issue. Big thinkers ought to indeed think of what is to be done with human endeavours.
"****Still we have no progress from my inquiry"
With my reply above, perhaps you shall think differently.
"****No - the seperation is eternal - we used free will to enetr into the medium of ignorance where perception of god is an option and not a contingent necessity"
From whence comes our distinctness from a being which is omnipresent and omniscient and which temporality and transience is not something apart of him? Where only material existence has the illusion of distinction? Where the temporary is in fact only to be found in material existence, so how could we even choose to break away, if there is no temporary there?
"****But we perceive its absence"
Only afterwards when we wake up. We do not perceive its absence when it is happening.
"***So if you clip your fingernails or cut your hair you stand to lose soemthing that cannot be replaced?"
Technically, yes. As they are all unique. But God is infinite and for infinity to be diminished, is for it not to be infinite, therefore, God cannot be diminished if he is to be called infinite.
"****We couldn't be eternal if he did"
There is little reason to suggset we're eternal.
"***I was saying that existence, whatever variety of existence it may be, depends on god - even illusory existence"
Okay. But God himself relies on those existences, does he not? For if he exists, and he exists infinitely, he cannot lose something and retain that infinity nor existence.
"***If you want to know god you have to adopt the process he gives for knowing him - if you have some so-called better way to know god you will never know him - -and that process begins by eliminating things such as lust, envy etc"
So I must elliminate envy and lust before I can understand your arguments?
"**yes - or to take it further, god id the personality on whom all personalities depend (the sustaining eternal amongst all eternals)"
What aspect of personality requires another personality to sustain it? And would not that personality also have to be sustained, if personality requires sustainment?
"****If a person does not apply the relevant epistemology they do not perceive th erelated ontology""
Which is related to not having lust and the like?
"***successful epistemology grants a result that unsuccessful epistemology does not"
In what way is regular epistemology not succesful?
"***Physical things are initiated to move by will (either ours or gods) but whether it actually moves or not is dependant on god, since we have no potency outside of the capacity to will (we are dependant on external circumstances with variables we cannot fully assess)"
How are they initiated to move by will? What medium does this will use to make matter move? Moreover, how does God make it move? Moreover, how does God have more than our capacity?
"***Matter is not conscious - it does not exhibit free will - intersting that according to contemporary definitions of science we do not have free will (see above statement about how this is not surprising)"
According to philosophy, too. Free-will is not at all clearly apparent, specifically as it would violate causality, or even internal coherence, if taken to its logical extension.
"***Take away consciousness and you lose the essential ingredient - as for perfection - that's why god does not experience death, or even the living entity - the living entity experiences death in the medium of illusion (attachment to matter , namely this body)"
Take awayt he heart and you lose the consciousness. It isn't because consciousness that has departed that death in the body occurs, but consciousness departs because death has occurred in the body. If not, why does death occur when a mortal wound is delievered, or that there is always sign of the parts simply being incapable of dealing with things anymore?
Moreover, it is hard to say God is perfect therefore eternal, but rather should it be construed as eternal therefore perfect. That is, perfection exists in the attributes, not as something before it.
"***If the farmer wants to grow radishes he is required to plant them and also requires providence in the form of rain - providence and endeavour work together but providence determines more than endeavour"
Who can say the rain is caused by God? In fact, where is this so clearly evident cause?
"***therefore our endeavour is not the sole variable to determine success"
No indeed. But this does not imply God. This implies "variables of the working material".
"***What determines the relation between poteniality manifesting (all we can do is observe the laws of physics - we do not know why they exist the way they are - hence it leads down the well traversed avenue of "mystery")"
Relation is a fundamental of existence, alongside Time and Space/Matter.
"***Ever tried growing plants in the absence of sunlight?"
Yes. White asparagus.
But no, I was being facetious there. Of course one cannot grow a plant if you deprive it of nutrition.
"****So has petrol "
Indeed. And many other things. Therefore we are at least as capable as the natural processes that produce such.
"***How do they arrive at the conclusion, particularly at the exclusion of consciusness, when they have no evidence for this? Do you ever ask yourself this question?"
I actually do believe I am in possession of the secrets to consciousness. You are not convinced yet, nor am I convinced of yours, and that is why we are having this discussion. But this also comes from the fact that you are a metaphysical dualist, where I see no reason to be one.
"***and if desire is satisfied within the realms of a quality that is always increasing what then? Is increase synonymous with dissatisfaction? For instance iof a man has more than enough money to fulfill all his desires and then his salary suddenly doubles but his life goes on the same, how does increase eual dissatisfaction - actually there are many business men like this who eat the same thing for breakfast, live in the same house and wear the same clothes and have the same friends even though they may increase their earnings 10 times over - what to speak of god"
Desire is not satiated by clinging to something that only increases, only continually fed, or following it a long to its ultimate extent. Similarly, yes, all increase is indeed synonymous with dissatisfaction. For even if it is irrelevant to most areas of one's life, the fact that one has even sought out more and more is a symptom of not being satisfied with what one has.
"***A properly qualified priest perceives god as his maintainer, not his congregation - actually there is a scriptural statement that a priest who is too attached to material comforts and a king who does not weild the rod of chastisement (enforce law) is swallowed by the earth (they fall down from their position)"
In the history of religion and society, this does not seem to be the case.
"*****Successful epistemology grants an ontology - material consciousness, like spiritual consciousness can also be cultivated so it behooves onbe to be familiar with the qualities that determine success and failure"
How does this relate to the problem of the priests always coming with religion?
"***If you don't apply the relevant epistemology it will always remain a mystery for a million years"
The more you reference this, the more it seems that all your arguments rely solely on "beleive this way first, then think of it".
"****well comparitively more than while in illusion don't you agree?"
Agreed. But this does not mean "all things".
"***** Watch 10hours of MTV and find out how"
In God, we would assuredly have perfect satisfaction, no conception of illusion, no conception of material things, no conception of suffering...
"***So because the king constructed the jail he is responsible if persons do activities to wind up there?"
Without the king to make the jail, the people would never go there, so yes. He facillitates the possibility.
"****Why do you want to be god?
Actually, I would not want to be God, considering I posit that God is not a being, and I have no desire to be a thing. But being a deity would be great. Greater everything.
"***he didn't conced it - we did "
How can we have conceded to imperfection if we had no idea of it?
"***which it is not when you eventually wake up"
Presuming one can or that there is a world to wake to.
"***If you are blind to perceiving an extension doesn't mean that it is not always extending"
If he were perfect, we could not be blind to such things.
Moreover, if we can resist God, despite him being "irresistable", even out of ignorance, we are still resisting him, hence he is not irresistable.
"***yes - on that platform nothing operates by force, or against one's will"
So one has unlimited freedom?
"***We are disconnected by not engaging in the service of the whole, just like a finger becomes dysfunctional, even though attached to the body, while it is broken and in the process of knittin g th e bones"
Yet if God is perfect, such could not happen. He could not have a part that could "disconnect with him".
"***Such classifications are determined by qualities - like for instance if I say I like drinking milk and then proceed to grind up rice flour mix it with water and apparently relish it I have only approached the superficial symptoms of drinking milk - one should know what are the actual qualities of relishing service to god or traversing the road of enjoyment otherwise one may simply be relishing the road of material acquisition under a different label"
What are these "actual qualities" of "spiritual service"?
"***If you stand to lose it again then you are relishing the labour of your love only"
Indeed. There is joy in the challenge of itself as well as the attainment of such.
More in a bit.
