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

[AAF]

Hi grover;


grover: " Your not presenting any actual evidence to back up your view. You just keep repeating the phrase that it's necessary as if it is self-evidently true ".


Re: I did present unassailable evidence for it; and you couldn't do anything about it except expressing how you feel about it with no counter argument whatsoever. My argument, therefore, is very lucky! It's certainly true that the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is necessary for religion to function as a living and vital ideology. Even ancient deities made of (trees & rivers & planets & stars, etc.) had to have first human-like (personality & mind & spirit & compassion & sense of right and wrong) before getting revered and worshipped by the ancient folks. In short, They had to be human-like and good, before they became objects of worship and religion.

==============================================

grover: " No, you're wrong. If it was impossible Spinoza couldn't have done it ".


Re: I'm right. Spinoza couldn't do it completely. Google for his philosophy! He postulated that (God & the world are one). And the end result of that postulate is that natural phenomena have become animistic and full with spirits of all sorts. For the sake of science, therefore, you should choose the 'religious fundamentalists' over your Spinoza!
http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi022/spinlec.htm

==============================================


grover: " You keep saying its impossible but not explaining why ".


Re: Well; the proof is in the pudding. Try to come up with one single '100%' non-anthropomorphic definition of 'God'! You can't do it; can you? And that means it's impossible.

==============================================


grover: " I saw nothing on that page that refutes my claim about Christian Mystics ".


Re: It's full of refutations! Just bring one single, human-free, non-anthropomorphic definition of 'God' to support your claim. It's just impossible; you can't do it no matter how hard you try.

==============================================


grover: " Right. Which is why we should take things that are satisfying to them sceptically ".


Re: I agree.

==============================================


grover: " So? You still haven't answered why? You just keep repeating the same empty phrase about necessity over and over again. It's an "argument" devoid of any real content. Its no different than a theist saying that God is necessary and refusing to explain why ".


Re: I'm afraid that your above argument is the 'empty' one! Since the theistic definitions of 'God' are very important in debates of this sort. You can't just go around making up your own definitions of 'God' and then shooting them down. You have to make sure that any definition, under discussion' is valid and recognized as such by whom may concern. Otherwise, you're just fighting 'wind mills' and 'ghosts' of your own making; correct?

==============================================


grover: " How so "?


Re: This is exactly & precisely the answer to your question. Why do like to ask over and over the same simple question? There is a lot of 'supposing going on' in the mystics' claim of (perceiving & meeting) their 'God ' in person, including the outrageous supposition of being (exceptionally gifted & chosen & favored & taken on a tour) by the 'Almighty' Himself! . And that is a very personal and anthropomorphic notion of 'God'. It's clear and simple.

==============================================


grover: " Just because humans have will doesn't mean that all things that will are human ".


Re: Not exactly! Will is one of the most important characteristics of the human person. Consequently, any entity of will has at least one of the most essential human attributes, and therefore, human-like. Not necessary human in every respect, but such an entity must be human-like.


==============================================


grover: " First of all provide some evidence they actually anthropomorphised the sun. Second of all, even if they did, that just means humans anthropomorphize things ".


Re: Firstly, it's historically true that the 'Sun-God' was equipped with (eyes + feelings + soul + mind + free will). Secondly, that is exactly & precisely what the 'anthropomorphic conception of a deity' means. Finally, your above argument is beside the point!
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Helios.html
http://www.toolong.com/sol.htm
http://touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm

==============================================


grover: " No, fertility cults didn't anthropomorhize nature, Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll have to see some actual textual evidence instead of you just repeating your empty phrase over and over ".


Re: That is easy. Just key in (fertility cults) on any search engine & read the returned entries. It is that simple!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/fertility.html

==============================================


grover: " You make it sound like this is all somehow self-evident. I don't see it at all ".


Re: If you just give yourself enough time to think it over, you will surely get the hang of it! Theists, through the ages, have, indeed, assigned the whole set of their good attributes to their 'gods', in order for those 'gods' to deserve the (worship & obedience & love & respect) of their human worshippers. In other words, theists are the creators of their 'gods', not the other way around. By the way, Prof. John Hick is a renowned expert on anthropomorphism; check him out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick
http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html

 

[AAF]

:bawl:



SnakeLord & grover are SILENT.

Does this mean they have run out of ARGUMENT?

 

[Jeremyhfht]

They're probably out of *PAGES* even.

 

[grover]

Hi grover;


grover: " Your not presenting any actual evidence to back up your view. You just keep repeating the phrase that it's necessary as if it is self-evidently true ".


Re: I did present unassailable evidence for it; and you couldn't do anything about it except expressing how you feel about it with no counter argument whatsoever. My argument, therefore, is very lucky! It's certainly true that the anthropomorphic conception of 'God' is necessary for religion to function as a living and vital ideology. Even ancient deities made of (trees & rivers & planets & stars, etc.) had to have first human-like (personality & mind & spirit & compassion & sense of right and wrong) before getting revered and worshipped by the ancient folks. In short, They had to be human-like and good, before they became objects of worship and religion.

If your point is that some poeple anthropomorphise God then I agree with you. But your point seems to be that all people do this which is flat out wrong. This is from the Hicks article you keep posting, note the complete abscence of anthropomorphising:God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.


==============================================

grover: " No, you're wrong. If it was impossible Spinoza couldn't have done it ".


Re: I'm right. Spinoza couldn't do it completely. Google for his philosophy! He postulated that (God & the world are one). And the end result of that postulate is that natural phenomena have become animistic and full with spirits of all sorts. For the sake of science, therefore, you should choose the 'religious fundamentalists' over your Spinoza!
http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi022/spinlec.htm

How the fuck is a God that is one with the world like a person?

==============================================

grover: " You keep saying its impossible but not explaining why ".


Re: Well; the proof is in the pudding. Try to come up with one single '100%' non-anthropomorphic definition of 'God'! You can't do it; can you? And that means it's impossible.

Here ya go from that article you keep posting: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.


==============================================

grover: " I saw nothing on that page that refutes my claim about Christian Mystics ".


Re: It's full of refutations! Just bring one single, human-free, non-anthropomorphic definition of 'God' to support your claim. It's just impossible; you can't do it no matter how hard you try.

It's VERY easy, you actually provided me with the quote from the Hicks article:
God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.



grover: " So? You still haven't answered why? You just keep repeating the same empty phrase about necessity over and over again. It's an "argument" devoid of any real content. Its no different than a theist saying that God is necessary and refusing to explain why ".

Re: I'm afraid that your above argument is the 'empty' one! Since the theistic definitions of 'God' are very important in debates of this sort. You can't just go around making up your own definitions of 'God' and then shooting them down. You have to make sure that any definition, under discussion' is valid and recognized as such by whom may concern. Otherwise, you're just fighting 'wind mills' and 'ghosts' of your own making; correct?

Listen you crazy bastard - you keep saying that all definitions are necessarily anthropomophic, it's not true. From the article you keep posting: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.


==============================================

grover: " How so "?


Re: This is exactly & precisely the answer to your question. Why do like to ask over and over the same simple question? There is a lot of 'supposing going on' in the mystics' claim of (perceiving & meeting) their 'God ' in person, including the outrageous supposition of being (exceptionally gifted & chosen & favored & taken on a tour) by the 'Almighty' Himself! . And that is a very personal and anthropomorphic notion of 'God'. It's clear and simple.

The only thing clear and simple is that there is no Human like characteristics in the following description a mystic give s of God: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.


==============================================

grover: " Just because humans have will doesn't mean that all things that will are human ".


Re: Not exactly! Will is one of the most important characteristics of the human person. Consequently, any entity of will has at least one of the most essential human attributes, and therefore, human-like. Not necessary human in every respect, but such an entity must be human-like.

Thats like saying because something has a head it is human like because it has a head and humans have heads. Its faulty logic.


==============================================

grover: " First of all provide some evidence they actually anthropomorphised the sun. Second of all, even if they did, that just means humans anthropomorphize things ".


Re: Firstly, it's historically true that the 'Sun-God' was equipped with (eyes + feelings + soul + mind + free will). Secondly, that is exactly & precisely what the 'anthropomorphic conception of a deity' means. Finally, your above argument is beside the point!
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Helios.html
http://www.toolong.com/sol.htm
http://touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm

I'll just take your word for it that humans anthroporhised the sun. It proves nothing except that humans anthropomorphise things sometimes which is not being disputed here. What is being disputed is that a conceptions of God are human like - balatantly false (see Hicks quote).

grover: " You make it sound like this is all somehow self-evident. I don't see it at all ".


Re: If you just give yourself enough time to think it over, you will surely get the hang of it! Theists, through the ages, have, indeed, assigned the whole set of their good attributes to their 'gods', in order for those 'gods' to deserve the (worship & obedience & love & respect) of their human worshippers. In other words, theists are the creators of their 'gods', not the other way around. By the way, Prof. John Hick is a renowned expert on anthropomorphism; check him out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick
http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html

You apparently didn't even read that John Hick article you keep posting because within it is a description of God that is not anthropomorphic in the least:
But Dionysius – or Denys, to give him a more user-friendly name – makes the divine ineffability central and begins at least to struggle with its implications. In his central work, The Mystical Theology, he says in every way he can think of that God is utterly and totally transcategorial. God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.

Now, please shut the up. Your point is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

What a long thread! I'm very pleased to see John Hick being quoted... I went to school with Hick's son, ...and St Denys 'Mystical Theology' is wonderful stuff.

I think most people do anthropomorphise God (Taoists don't so much), because it's hard to hold a concept of the ineffable in your head. However, most people who've thought about it also realise that their concept of God is pretty inadequate as a description.

That's why when people do have a direct mystical experience of 'God', it shocks them to the core. e.g. Thomas Aquinas never wrote again, claiming

"I cannot go on . . . All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me."

Spinoza was a pantheist which I think puts limits on 'God' - I prefer panentheism myself!

 

[AAF]

They're probably out of *PAGES* even.

Hi Jeremyhfht;

Do you think so?

SnakeLord is still silent!



:bawl:

 

[AAF]

grover: " If your point is that some people anthropomorphise God then I agree with you. But your point seems to be that all people do this, which is flat out wrong. This is from the Hicks article you keep posting, not the complete absence of anthropomorphizing: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: Nice try, grover! But negative attributes can't define anything. This supposed definition of 'God' by (Pseudo-Dionysius & other Gnostics) is a joke. Just take a second look at the total silliness of the above non-definition of the 'Almighty'. Let's summarise its absurdities! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist at all'. Since the only thing 'beyond being' is the 'non-being'. (3) "God, the ultimate One": if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't, possibly, know whether He is the 'ultimate One' or the 'ultimate Zero'. And so it is just 'hot air' on their part. (4) "It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": that is a bunch of blasphemies by any standards. Using 'It', instead of 'He', is blasphemous; 'no soul' is blasphemous; 'no mind' is blasphemous; 'no imagination' is blasphemous; 'no conviction' is blasphemous; 'no speech' is blasphemous; and 'no understanding' is blasphemous. Those mystics of John Hick are true libertines; don't you think so? (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then their 'God' must be the 'Absolute Nothingness' itself. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if their 'God' is not alive, then He must be dead! There is no way around it. (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": how can they know that? They just said that 'It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! The contradiction is obvious. (8) And once again, "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": how can they say that? They just stated that 'It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time'! Their absurd way of thinking is very clear. (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": I like that! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. But they said earlier that their 'God' is the 'ultimate One'. The contradiction is clear. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": this is the traditional way for denouncing 'Trinity' by early mystics; and the Byzantine emperor punished them severely for it. (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so why don't they just shut up and be quiet? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": that is just 'hogwash', grover; 'beyond assertion' is hogwash; and 'beyond denial' is also hogwash; and 'beyond assertion + beyond denial' strung together, in the one and the same sentence, are just humbug & nonsense & guff & hogwash. That is what it is. There is nothing else in it.

==============================================


grover: " How the fuck is a God that is one with the world like a person"?


Re: You're getting a bit 'grumpy', grover! Is that because John Hick's parody-like exposition has fooled you? You should think very carefully next time. What is wrong with 'God & the world' being one? It's a lot better than the non-definition of 'God' given by the Hick mystics; right? Why is it anthropomorphic? It's because humans are the most important in the entire world. And if 'God and the world are one', then they must be an essential part of the 'Almighty' Himself; and therefore, the case for anthropomorphism is slam-dunk.

==============================================


grover: " Here ya go from that article you keep posting: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: And here is the answer once again! (1) "Indescribable": if 'God' cannot be described, then He must be nothing and must have nothing to be described in the first place. That is exactly what 'Indescribable' means. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this simply means their 'God is the utter impossibility'; and hence, He does not exist. (3) "God, the ultimate One": that is just nonsense; because if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then it's impossible for them to know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": a soulless, mindless, unimaginative, conviction-less, speechless, dumb, and stupid 'god' is no god at all. It's clear and simple. (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then those mystics must be very mindless, unimaginative, speechless, and totally dumb & stupid. It's that simple. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if that is true, then they should not worship this 'crappy' thing; right? (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": that is okay; 'It' could be something else. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": this is also okay; 'It' can be grasped by something else! (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": in other words, this 'It' of theirs is broken; and 'It' is not divine; and 'It' is not good. Good luck for them! (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": probably, that is because this 'It' of theirs is too dumb to get a girl! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": but its name is 'It'; correct? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": so we can say goodbye to the theists' assertion & goodbye to the atheists' denial; good riddance!

==============================================




grover: " It's VERY easy, you actually provided me with the quote from the Hicks article: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: You love repetition; don't you? I love it too. Let's summarise! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't really know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist'. (3) "God, the ultimate One" if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. And so it is just humbug on their part. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": that is a sheer blasphemy on their part. Using 'It', instead of 'He', is blasphemous; 'no soul' is blasphemous; 'no mind' is blasphemous; 'no imagination' is blasphemous; 'no conviction' is blasphemous; 'no speech' is blasphemous; and 'no understanding' is blasphemous. (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then their 'God' must be the 'Absolute Nothingness' itself. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if their 'God' is not alive, then He must be dead! (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": how can they know that? They just said that 'It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! The contradiction is obvious. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": how can they know that? They just said that 'It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time'! Their absurd way of thinking is very clear. (9) 'It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": I love it! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. But they said earlier that their 'God' is the 'ultimate One'. The contradiction is clear. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": no wife, no kids; Muslim preachers love it! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so why don't they just shut up? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": that is just 'hogwash', grover; 'beyond assertion' is hogwash; and 'beyond denial' is also humbug & nonsense & guff & hogwash. That is what it is. There is nothing else in it, 'CUCKOO'!

==============================================



grover: " Listen you crazy bastard - you keep saying that all definitions are necessarily anthropomorphic, it's not true. From the article you keep posting: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial' ".


Re: Listen to me, 'crazy bastard'! That is not a definition at all. John Hick's parody-like exposition has fooled you. Let's summarise! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist'. (3) "God, the ultimate One": if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. And so it is just 'hot air' on their part. (4) "Is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": they have no chance in hell of justifying these baseless and absurd assertions. Do you believe in this 'crap', grover? You are not 'cockamamie'; are you? (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": rubbish! Those nuts of yours have already stripped their 'God' of His 'soul + mind + imagination + conviction + speech + understanding'! (6) "It does not live nor is it life": nonsense! Those irrational folks of Hick are about to declare that their deity 'cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": trash! Can you see it, grover? Those who sell away their mind; they sell their soul to the devil! (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": absurd! I told you they were about to give up the power of understanding for nothing. (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": contradiction! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": a silly concern for silly minds; that is what it is. (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so please, tell them to shut up, grover! (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": pure hogwash, grover! And 'beyond assertion' is drivel; and 'beyond denial' is also drivel. You can only use one at a time; you can't have both in the one and the same sentence.

==============================================


grover: " The only thing clear and simple is that there is no Human like characteristics in the following description a mystic give s of God: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: It is not a definition, grover! Only the point of 'Absolute Nothingness' can be defined that way. Now, I would like to take back my 'CUCKOO'; it was intended only to make your 'crazy bastard' justified. Let's summarise it one more time! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist'. (3) "God, the ultimate One": if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. And so it is just 'hot air' on their part. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": that is a sheer blasphemy on their part. Using 'It', instead of 'He', is blasphemous; 'no soul' is blasphemous; 'no mind' is blasphemous; 'no imagination' is blasphemous; 'no conviction' is blasphemous; 'no speech' is blasphemous; and 'no understanding' is blasphemous. Those Gnostics are worse than libertines; don't you think so? (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then their 'God' must be the 'Absolute Nothingness' itself. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if their 'God' is not alive, then He must be dead! (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": how can they know that? They just said that 'It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! The contradiction is obvious. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": how can they know that? They just said that 'It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time'! Their absurd way of thinking is very clear. (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": I like that! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. But they said earlier that their 'God' is the 'ultimate One'. The contradiction is clear. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": this is the usual way for making fun of 'Mary & Jesus'; even Isaac Newton did it secretly; and Muslim priests just love it! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so why don't they just shut up? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": that is just 'hogwash', grover; 'beyond assertion' is hogwash; and 'beyond denial' is also humbug & nonsense & guff & hogwash. That is what it is. There is nothing else in it.

==============================================

grover: " That's like saying because something has a head it is human like because it has a head and humans have heads. It's faulty logic ".


Re: Your analogy is baseless. Free will is not a head! Free will is one of the most important characteristics of the human person. And so, any entity of free will has at least one of the most essential human attributes, and therefore, human-like. Not necessary human in every respect, but such an entity must be human-like.

==============================================


grover: " I'll just take your word for it that humans anthroporhised the sun. It proves nothing except that humans anthropomorphise things sometimes which is not being disputed here. What is being disputed is that a conceptions of God are human like - blatantly false (see Hicks quote) ".


Re: The anthropomorphic definition of 'God' is the only possible definition. That 'no attributes' quote of yours would not do it. If you keep saying 'God doesn't have this, doesn't have that, doesn't have these, doesn't have those, and doesn't have any defining attribute or positive characteristic at all', you will end up with nothingness and nothing else but the ultimate nothingness. Would you like to worship the Ultimate Nothing? Good luck to you! By the way, the above parody-like passage of Hick leaves out, intentionally or unintentionally, one important element in the Gnostic definition of 'God'. Almost always, Gnostics, and mystics in general, define their 'God' in terms of pure love. Such a love-based definition is, of course, very anthropomorphic; and it does make sense. Am I right? What do you make of it, grover?

==============================================


grover: " You apparently didn't even read that John Hick article you keep posting because within it is a description of God that is not anthropomorphic in the least:
But Dionysius – or Denys, to give him a more user-friendly name – makes the divine ineffability central and begins at least to struggle with its implications. In his central work, The Mystical Theology, he says in every way he can think of that God is utterly and totally transcategorial. God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’. Now, please shut the up. Your point is complete and utter bullshit ".


Re: I'm afraid you're repeating 'utter rubbish', so to speak! The above ridiculous non-definition of 'God' is taken out of context. Pseudo-Dionysius used beauty as a primary attribute to define his deity:
http://www.cc.uoa.gr/theology/html/english/pubs/doctrsec/scouteris/05/05.htm
Furthermore, the mystical theology is based upon love. Do you understand? It's founded on love, love, love, and more love! You can't make the concept of 'God the most anthropomorphic without using love; can you?

 

[grover]

grover: " If your point is that some people anthropomorphise God then I agree with you. But your point seems to be that all people do this, which is flat out wrong. This is from the Hicks article you keep posting, not the complete absence of anthropomorphizing: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: Nice try, grover! But negative attributes can't define anything. This supposed definition of 'God' by (Pseudo-Dionysius & other Gnostics) is a joke. Just take a second look at the total silliness of the above non-definition of the 'Almighty'. Let's summarise its absurdities! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist at all'. Since the only thing 'beyond being' is the 'non-being'. (3) "God, the ultimate One": if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't, possibly, know whether He is the 'ultimate One' or the 'ultimate Zero'. And so it is just 'hot air' on their part. (4) "It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": that is a bunch of blasphemies by any standards. Using 'It', instead of 'He', is blasphemous; 'no soul' is blasphemous; 'no mind' is blasphemous; 'no imagination' is blasphemous; 'no conviction' is blasphemous; 'no speech' is blasphemous; and 'no understanding' is blasphemous. Those mystics of John Hick are true libertines; don't you think so? (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then their 'God' must be the 'Absolute Nothingness' itself. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if their 'God' is not alive, then He must be dead! There is no way around it. (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": how can they know that? They just said that 'It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! The contradiction is obvious. (8) And once again, "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": how can they say that? They just stated that 'It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time'! Their absurd way of thinking is very clear. (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": I like that! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. But they said earlier that their 'God' is the 'ultimate One'. The contradiction is clear. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": this is the traditional way for denouncing 'Trinity' by early mystics; and the Byzantine emperor punished them severely for it. (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so why don't they just shut up and be quiet? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": that is just 'hogwash', grover; 'beyond assertion' is hogwash; and 'beyond denial' is also hogwash; and 'beyond assertion + beyond denial' strung together, in the one and the same sentence, are just humbug & nonsense & guff & hogwash. That is what it is. There is nothing else in it.

Don't go playing little semantic games. You said all conceptions of god are by necessity of anthropomorphic. Denys God is not anthropomorphic. Period.

==============================================

grover: " How the fuck is a God that is one with the world like a person"?


Re: You're getting a bit 'grumpy', grover! Is that because John Hick's parody-like exposition has fooled you? You should think very carefully next time. What is wrong with 'God & the world' being one? It's a lot better than the non-definition of 'God' given by the Hick mystics; right? Why is it anthropomorphic? It's because humans are the most important in the entire world. And if 'God and the world are one', then they must be an essential part of the 'Almighty' Himself; and therefore, the case for anthropomorphism is slam-dunk.

There is nothing human about a God that is one with the world. Now you r saying that the World is itself anthtropomorphic. No, it's not. Neither is the universe. Your just giving examples of humans projecting human like qualities onto things. Its not in dispute that they do do that. "Slam dunk" just like WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk I assume.

==============================================

grover: " Here ya go from that article you keep posting: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: And here is the answer once again! (1) "Indescribable": if 'God' cannot be described, then He must be nothing and must have nothing to be described in the first place. That is exactly what 'Indescribable' means. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this simply means their 'God is the utter impossibility'; and hence, He does not exist. (3) "God, the ultimate One": that is just nonsense; because if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then it's impossible for them to know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": a soulless, mindless, unimaginative, conviction-less, speechless, dumb, and stupid 'god' is no god at all. It's clear and simple. (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then those mystics must be very mindless, unimaginative, speechless, and totally dumb & stupid. It's that simple. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if that is true, then they should not worship this 'crappy' thing; right? (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": that is okay; 'It' could be something else. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": this is also okay; 'It' can be grasped by something else! (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": in other words, this 'It' of theirs is broken; and 'It' is not divine; and 'It' is not good. Good luck for them! (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": probably, that is because this 'It' of theirs is too dumb to get a girl! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": but its name is 'It'; correct? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": so we can say goodbye to the theists' assertion & goodbye to the atheists' denial; good riddance!

The point is that Denys clearly does not conceive as God as a human.

==============================================

grover: " It's VERY easy, you actually provided me with the quote from the Hicks article: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: You love repetition; don't you? I love it too. Let's summarise! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't really know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist'. (3) "God, the ultimate One" if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. And so it is just humbug on their part. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": that is a sheer blasphemy on their part. Using 'It', instead of 'He', is blasphemous; 'no soul' is blasphemous; 'no mind' is blasphemous; 'no imagination' is blasphemous; 'no conviction' is blasphemous; 'no speech' is blasphemous; and 'no understanding' is blasphemous. (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then their 'God' must be the 'Absolute Nothingness' itself. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if their 'God' is not alive, then He must be dead! (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": how can they know that? They just said that 'It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! The contradiction is obvious. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": how can they know that? They just said that 'It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time'! Their absurd way of thinking is very clear. (9) 'It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": I love it! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. But they said earlier that their 'God' is the 'ultimate One'. The contradiction is clear. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": no wife, no kids; Muslim preachers love it! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so why don't they just shut up? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": that is just 'hogwash', grover; 'beyond assertion' is hogwash; and 'beyond denial' is also humbug & nonsense & guff & hogwash. That is what it is. There is nothing else in it, 'CUCKOO'!

The point is that Denys doesn't conceive as God as a human. You can try whatever semantic word games and logical contortions you want but you won't change that fact. You know blue exists right? Try and describe it. Should I take your inability to describe it as proof it doesn't exist? Or proof of the limits of language?

==============================================

grover: " Listen you crazy bastard - you keep saying that all definitions are necessarily anthropomorphic, it's not true. From the article you keep posting: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial' ".


Re: Listen to me, 'crazy bastard'! That is not a definition at all. John Hick's parody-like exposition has fooled you. Let's summarise! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist'. (3) "God, the ultimate One": if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. And so it is just 'hot air' on their part. (4) "Is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": they have no chance in hell of justifying these baseless and absurd assertions. Do you believe in this 'crap', grover? You are not 'cockamamie'; are you? (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": rubbish! Those nuts of yours have already stripped their 'God' of His 'soul + mind + imagination + conviction + speech + understanding'! (6) "It does not live nor is it life": nonsense! Those irrational folks of Hick are about to declare that their deity 'cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": trash! Can you see it, grover? Those who sell away their mind; they sell their soul to the devil! (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": absurd! I told you they were about to give up the power of understanding for nothing. (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": contradiction! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": a silly concern for silly minds; that is what it is. (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so please, tell them to shut up, grover! (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": pure hogwash, grover! And 'beyond assertion' is drivel; and 'beyond denial' is also drivel. You can only use one at a time; you can't have both in the one and the same sentence.

Describe the color blue.

==============================================

grover: " The only thing clear and simple is that there is no Human like characteristics in the following description a mystic give s of God: God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’ ".


Re: It is not a definition, grover! Only the point of 'Absolute Nothingness' can be defined that way. Now, I would like to take back my 'CUCKOO'; it was intended only to make your 'crazy bastard' justified. Let's summarise it one more time! (1) "Indescribable": if they can't describe Him, then they don't know anything about Him. They can't even know whether He is a god or a devil or just an absurd figment of their imagination. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this statement of theirs is logically equivalent to the statement that 'their God does not exist'. (3) "God, the ultimate One": if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then they can't know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. And so it is just 'hot air' on their part. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": that is a sheer blasphemy on their part. Using 'It', instead of 'He', is blasphemous; 'no soul' is blasphemous; 'no mind' is blasphemous; 'no imagination' is blasphemous; 'no conviction' is blasphemous; 'no speech' is blasphemous; and 'no understanding' is blasphemous. Those Gnostics are worse than libertines; don't you think so? (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then their 'God' must be the 'Absolute Nothingness' itself. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if their 'God' is not alive, then He must be dead! (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": how can they know that? They just said that 'It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding'! The contradiction is obvious. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": how can they know that? They just said that 'It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time'! Their absurd way of thinking is very clear. (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": I like that! Quite simply, their deity is nothing. But they said earlier that their 'God' is the 'ultimate One'. The contradiction is clear. (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": this is the usual way for making fun of 'Mary & Jesus'; even Isaac Newton did it secretly; and Muslim priests just love it! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": so why don't they just shut up? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": that is just 'hogwash', grover; 'beyond assertion' is hogwash; and 'beyond denial' is also humbug & nonsense & guff & hogwash. That is what it is. There is nothing else in it.

Describe the color blue.

==============================================

grover: " That's like saying because something has a head it is human like because it has a head and humans have heads. It's faulty logic ".


Re: Your analogy is baseless. Free will is not a head! Free will is one of the most important characteristics of the human person. And so, any entity of free will has at least one of the most essential human attributes, and therefore, human-like. Not necessary human in every respect, but such an entity must be human-like.

Heads are one of the most important human characteristics and therefore any entity that has a head has one of the most important human characteristics and is therefore humanlike blah blah blah. Too bad Denys didnt say htat God as either a head or free will. Next!

==============================================

grover: " I'll just take your word for it that humans anthroporhised the sun. It proves nothing except that humans anthropomorphise things sometimes which is not being disputed here. What is being disputed is that a conceptions of God are human like - blatantly false (see Hicks quote) ".


Re: The anthropomorphic definition of 'God' is the only possible definition. That 'no attributes' quote of yours would not do it. If you keep saying 'God doesn't have this, doesn't have that, doesn't have these, doesn't have those, and doesn't have any defining attribute or positive characteristic at all', you will end up with nothingness and nothing else but the ultimate nothingness. Would you like to worship the Ultimate Nothing? Good luck to you! By the way, the above parody-like passage of Hick leaves out, intentionally or unintentionally, one important element in the Gnostic definition of 'God'. Almost always, Gnostics, and mystics in general, define their 'God' in terms of pure love. Such a love-based definition is, of course, very anthropomorphic; and it does make sense. Am I right? What do you make of it, grover?

You are wrong. God can't be described in human language. Humans can be described in human language. Thats why God isn't anthromorphic and any God that is anthropomprphic and described by human language is obviously just a human creation. It's like The Mystic Eckhart asked "WHy do you prattle on about GOd, anything you can say of it is untrue." He also said "only the hand that erases can write the true thing"

==============================================

grover: " You apparently didn't even read that John Hick article you keep posting because within it is a description of God that is not anthropomorphic in the least:
But Dionysius – or Denys, to give him a more user-friendly name – makes the divine ineffability central and begins at least to struggle with its implications. In his central work, The Mystical Theology, he says in every way he can think of that God is utterly and totally transcategorial. God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’. Now, please shut the up. Your point is complete and utter bullshit ".


Re: I'm afraid you're repeating 'utter rubbish', so to speak! The above ridiculous non-definition of 'God' is taken out of context. Pseudo-Dionysius used beauty as a primary attribute to define his deity:
http://www.cc.uoa.gr/theology/html/english/pubs/doctrsec/scouteris/05/05.htm
Furthermore, the mystical theology is based upon love. Do you understand? It's founded on love, love, love, and more love! You can't make the concept of 'God the most anthropomorphic without using love; can you?

Denys doesn't have an anthropomorpphic conception of God so apparently love can exist independently of what we consider human. You seem to be saying that anything that has anything in common whatsoever is human like. Thats just silly. Humans are made of atoms therefore all things made of atoms are human like. Its preposterous. Bottom line Denys doesnt have an anthropmorhic conception of God. If you don't accept his inablity to describe God in language then I challenge you to describe the color blue...in fact I'm not going to bother responding to this thread unless you provide a description of blue such that a blind person would know exaclty what blue look like based on your description. Good luck!

 

[AAF]

grover: " Don't go playing little semantic games. You said all conceptions of god are by necessity of anthropomorphic. Denys God is not anthropomorphic. Period ".


Re: It is not a game of semantics. It is a very simple fact. No '100%' non-anthropomorphic definition of 'God' is logically possible. As mentioned earlier, Pseudo-Dionysius used Platonic attributes such as 'beauty', 'symmetry', 'love', 'goodness', etc. to define his 'God'. Among these defining characteristics, 'beauty & love' are entirely subjective and can only be felt and perceived by humans and human-like beings. And so it follows that any beauty-based & love-based definition of 'God' is necessarily anthropomorphic and totally dependent on the peculiar physiology of the human brain.

=====================================================

grover: " There is nothing human about a God that is one with the world. Now you're saying that the World is itself anthropomorphic. No, it's not. Neither is the universe. Your just giving examples of humans projecting human like qualities onto things. It's not in dispute that they do that. "Slam dunk" just like WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk I assume ".


Re: It's a slam-dunk case regardless of the former Intelligence Chief's latest book! And it goes something like this. Human beings are an integral part of the world. If the world & God are the one and the same entity, then human beings are an integral part of God. And therefore, this particular God must be anthropomorphic, because humans have managed to insert themselves as basic building blocks right into the very fabric of this God. Accordingly, anthropomorphism is a foregone conclusion and slam-dunk case.

=====================================================


grover: " The point is that Denys clearly does not conceive as God as a human ".


Re: You haven't given the idea of using negative attributes to define 'God' much thought; correct? Okay, let's use them to define 'grover' for example! (1) grover is not lightgigantic. (2) grover is not SnakeLord. (3) grover is not a computer. (4) grover is not a cloud. (5) grover is not the sun (6) grover is not a river. (6) grover is not the moon. (7) grover is not the 'WMD' of Saddam. (8) grover is not Bigfoot. (9) grover is not the Pope. (10) grover is not a UFO. (11) grover is not Crazy Horse. And (12) grover is not the King of Thailand. Well, it is done! Can you now figure out who this 'grover' is? Is it reasonable for us to claim we have defined grover? This list of negative attributes can go on and on and on forever; but we can never ever define or know or figure out who or what this mysterious grover really is. Your 'Denys', therefore, got it all wrong.

=====================================================


grover: " The point is that Denys doesn't conceive as God as a human. You can try whatever semantic word games and logical contortions you want but you won't change that fact. You know blue exists right? Try and describe it. Should I take your inability to describe it as proof it doesn't exist? Or proof of the limits of language "?


Re: It's called 'logic' & 'reasoning' & the 'eternal principles of rational thought'. This 'Denys' of yours not only he doesn't have any anthropomorphic conception, but also he doesn't have any other conception of his deity whatsoever. Play with words as much as you want, but your playful and evasive 'Denys' has no real conception of 'God'. And that is the truth.

=====================================================


grover: " Describe the color blue ".


Re: Your wish is my command! The blue color is located in the visible-light regime of the electromagnetic spectrum, between the green and the violet, and around the principal wavelength of (475 nm). And its energy is greater than those of the green & the yellow & the red, but it's less than that of the violet.

=====================================================


grover: " Describe the color blue ".


Re: In theory, the blue light, whose principal wavelength is (475 nm), can interact with an infinite number of potential types of sensors. Depending on the specific structure of the sensor, the interaction with blue light can be sensed and felt in a continuous and stable manner unique to the type of this particular sensor. For instance, when the blue light strikes a photographic plate, it causes dark grains different in size from those grains caused by other forms of light. In the eye of a lion, as a second example, the interaction with blue light is sensed almost the same as the sensation caused in the human eye by the absence of light altogether. And of course, the human eye senses the interaction with blue light in exactly the same way the eyes of grover sense the color of the sky & the sea!

=====================================================

grover: " Heads are one of the most important human characteristics and therefore any entity that has a head has one of the most important human characteristics and is therefore humanlike blah blah blah. Too bad Denys didn't say that God as either a head or free will. Next "!


Re: Not exactly! Heads are important only, if there is a healthy, big, smart, and well-developed brain inside them. But when it comes to the definitions of 'God', heads are not very important. Since heads belong to bodies and physical structures. God can have any shape or form or body He wants. That is not our business. Our main interest, here, is in the character and the mind and the morality and the personality and the power of God. And none of these important aspects of the Divine can exist and function and make sense without being qualitatively anthropomorphic in every sense of the term.

=====================================================


grover: " You are wrong. God can't be described in human language. Humans can be described in human language. That's why God isn't anthropomorphic and any God that is anthropomorphic and described by human language is obviously just a human creation. It's like The Mystic Eckhart asked "Why do you prattle on about God, anything you can say of it is untrue." He also said "only the hand that erases can write the true thing" ".


Re: I'm right; and you & your 'Eckhart' are wrong! God can be described in any well-developed human language like this one of the English. But the concept of God is not anthropomorphic because of the human language. Since it's clear that the human language has been used to describe and make non-anthropomorphic conceptions of so many things, including mountains, volcanoes, oceans, planets, stars, and the universal force of gravity. The concept of God is anthropomorphic because of His primary function as the high authority and the sole ruler of the universe. You just can't elect to this high and prestigious position your Denys' mindless & stupid deity.

=====================================================


grover: " Denys doesn't have an anthropomorphic conception of God so apparently love can exist independently of what we consider human. You seem to be saying that anything that has anything in common whatsoever is human like. That's just silly. Humans are made of atoms therefore all things made of atoms are human like. It's preposterous. Bottom line Denys doesn't have an anthropomorphic conception of God. If you don't accept his inability to describe God in language then I challenge you to describe the color blue...in fact I'm not going to bother responding to this thread unless you provide a description of blue such that a blind person would know exactly what blue look like based on your description. Good luck "!


Re: Denys' deity is mindless and stupid; and these are certainly negative human characteristics. Can love be independent of humans? Certainly! Love can exist among dogs. Every creature with neurons for sensing pleasure inside its brain, in principle, can feel love. But when the object of love is universal and its primary function is to take good care of other sensitive beings in the world, then that love is characteristically human. Does the Supreme Ruler of the universe have this universal sort of love? He must; otherwise humans would not worship Him because of His negative human attribute of (non-love). It's clear and simple. As for humans and atoms, their relation is a straightforward matter of masonry. Atoms are the basic building blocks of the human body. And therefore, the human body is a well-structured collection of atoms. Likewise, the best human attributes are the basic building blocks of the character of God. And hence the personality of God is an extended and well-organized collection of the best human attributes. Now, let's take a closer look at this blue-color problem of yours! The nature of the blue color has two main aspects. The first aspect is objective, universal, measurable, scientific, and based upon wavelength, frequency, energy, speed, momentum, and so on. This aspect of the blue color can be communicated and described in any language to anybody anywhere anytime. The other main aspect of the nature of the blue color is subjective, personal, and illusory; and its primary role is to function as labels and identifiers for important objects for the survival of the sensing entity in question. Bees, for instance, label various kinds of flowers by the color of the ultraviolet, because flowers are very important for the survival of bees. Lions, by contrast, have no use for such a rich system of labeling; and so they label every thing as black or white only. Consequently, the marauding lion doesn't give a 'damn' to know how the sky & the sea look like to the human eye. And the lion is right. The label of the blue color is not an actual part of the real world; and it exists only in the form of a very minute chemical interaction inside the human eye and the eyes of similar creatures. And that is it.

 

[grover]

You just wasted alot of time writing that crap. I scanned it for a desciption of blue and didn't see one. Do not bother responding with anything except a description of blue. This is requested because you wrote: "And here is the answer once again! (1) "Indescribable": if 'God' cannot be described, then He must be nothing and must have nothing to be described in the first place. That is exactly what 'Indescribable' means. (2) "Beyond all being and knowledge": this simply means their 'God is the utter impossibility'; and hence, He does not exist. (3) "God, the ultimate One": that is just nonsense; because if their 'God' is 'Indescribable' and 'Beyond all being and knowledge', then it's impossible for them to know whether He is 'the ultimate One' or not. (4) "Is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding": a soulless, mindless, unimaginative, conviction-less, speechless, dumb, and stupid 'god' is no god at all. It's clear and simple. (5) "It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding": if that is the case, then those mystics must be very mindless, unimaginative, speechless, and totally dumb & stupid. It's that simple. (6) "It does not live nor is it life": if that is true, then they should not worship this 'crappy' thing; right? (7) "It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time": that is okay; 'It' could be something else. (8) "It cannot be grasped by the understanding": this is also okay; 'It' can be grasped by something else! (9) "It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness": in other words, this 'It' of theirs is broken; and 'It' is not divine; and 'It' is not good. Good luck for them! (10) "It is not sonship or fatherhood": probably, that is because this 'It' of theirs is too dumb to get a girl! (11) "There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it": but its name is 'It'; correct? (12) "It is beyond assertion and denial": so we can say goodbye to the theists' assertion & goodbye to the atheists' denial; good riddance!"

Denys inability to describe God is due to the inadequacy of language. If you disagree that this inablity to describe God could be due to the inadquacy of language you must describe blue. So God for Denys is something that language can't describe. Which is why he can only say what God is not. Humans can be described. But Denys does not describe God as a human. WHich means Denys has not anthropomorhised God. Period. Don't bother with another long winded post because I'm not going to read it, just like I didn't read your last one. I'm just going to scan it for a description of blue.

 

[wesmorris]

"God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’."

Indeed I would agree with this assertion of what the idea "god" represents.... yet there's "god knows" how much discussion of that which cannot be really discussed.

Humanity is fascinating.

"Denys inability to describe God is due to the inadequacy of language."

Well sort of, it's more about the opportunity cost of perception. Saying it's an inadequecy of language might lead one to believe that we just haven't done language well enough to get there, though you might have meant that language cannot be adequate, in which case I'd agree.

 

[grover]

Wes,
Language is totally inadequate.

 

[Enterprise-D]

There is no such thing as indescribable. If we can describe a time paradox, or chaos theory, we can certainly describe an omnipotent being who may or may not exist. The rest is just romanticising.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

There is no such thing as indescribable. If we can describe a time paradox, or chaos theory, we can certainly describe an omnipotent being who may or may not exist. The rest is just romanticising.

No we cannot, not even the people who had experienced God have been able to describe it. Gautama used to say: "You can ask me about anything, but do not ask me about God". Jesus used to say: "God is indeed the incognisible".

So, you believe you can do better than them?

 

[Sarkus]

Isn't calling something "indescribable" actually describing it?

Isn't calling something "incognisible" (not sure of your spelling?) showing that you know it enough to know it is unknowable?

Aren't both of these paradoxes? And are they not merely means of hiding the possibility that God does not exist? Removing it from the possibility of scrutiny lest you be shown to be wrong?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Isn't calling something "indescribable" actually describing it?

Isn't calling something "incognisible" (not sure of your spelling?) showing that you know it enough to know it is unknowable?

Aren't both of these paradoxes? And are they not merely means of hiding the possibility that God does not exist? Removing it from the possibility of scrutiny lest you be shown to be wrong?

Everything depends on it opposite side.
Belief, and non-belief in God, are the two sides of the coin. You cannot wipe one side out.
If you don´t believe in God, then you have a judgement about what God is, therefore, you don´t believe in the concept that you think the word "God" explains.
If you believe in God, you too have a concept on what "God" is, and is prefabricated with the things you have experienced in your life.

This does not mean God doesn´t exist, but try to imagine something you have never seen. Is that possible? To see somethin in you mind that you have never seen in your life?
If you imagine a giant flying frog up in a golden cloud, you are not imagining anything new. You have seen a cloud, you have seen the Gold color, you have seen a frog, and you have seen wings. You are not imagining something new.

So, if God is not from this material realm, how can you imagine it? It takes a serious practice of meditation to be able to see what you have never seen.

And if you meditate deeply on this (it is actually a technique of the 5000 year old "Vigyan Bhairav Tantra" attributed to Shiva), you may be able to see what you have never seen. It can be called the "this is not it" technique. Your mind will see thousands of things first, but you have seen them all, so every image, you say "this is not it", because you have seen it in the material world. During months of practice, you mind will do an inner-turn and see something you have never seen before, that my friend would be your inner-most self. Some may call it God, Brahm, Tao, the very soul of life.

Sutra 88.
Each thing is perceived through knowing.
The self shines in space through knowing.
Perceive one being as knower and known.

 

[Grantywanty]

God is self-contradictory. Hence God does not exist.

Are you familiar with QM double slit experiments are some of the aparent paradoxes and self-contradictions the results brought up?

Just because you, at this time, nor anyone else, for that matter, can come up with a good reconciliation of apparant self-contradictions does not amout to a proof.

 

[grover]

It's impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having no beginning. It's impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having a beginning, what was before it? Isn't this a paradox? Guess the universe must not exist. Or maybe the really big shit is paradoxical. Maybe all a pardox is is how the infinite appears to a finite mind.

 

[Ogmios]

All contradictions simply mean that the concepts used were imperfect.

Cause and effect assumes time. But god created time, so he must be above it. For something to have come from nothing into something there must have been a beginning and an ending. But if time was "invented" only after/during the creation, there really is no contradiction.

The problem, as I see it, is that cause and effect can only apply to things within a timeline. But god must be above time. Thereby cause and effect do not apply normally to god, and god cannot have a cause as we understand it.

Also, which God would this be, and how do you know what he has or has not done?

 

[Sarkus]

It's impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having no beginning.

I can conceive of it.
Many people can.
Why do you think it impossible?

It's impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having a beginning, what was before it?

Why is it impossible?
Many people can.

Isn't this a paradox?

No.