Alex, I'm going to try and respond to you tomorow.
jan.
jan.
And here is the answer to your previous post to me, which I am not going to parse again.Because nothing precedes Brahman, by definition.
jan.
When an author is writting a scripture I suggest that he is recording his personal belief system an their authority can not reasonably be moved past this simple yet apparent fact.
Just because we end up with volumes of text doesnot mean they are more than a collection of recorded personal beliefs and the fact that they may have be recorded many years ago does not change the fact they are recordings of personal beliefs.
To suggest anything past my definition of the scriptures, the recording of an authors personal belief, seems to be foolish.
Jan I hope you can now see why I place no faith in the scriptures as offering anything other than the personal belief of another who existed in the past when he did not have the benefit of the accumulated knowledge humans now possess.
If alive today and given a lap top to record his views would the ancient author hold and record his ideas as he did in the past. .. Would it not be reasonable to think he may now be sophisticated enough to argue on cosmology with happy access to real data such that he could present a more informed personal view.. His concern may be choosing between steady state and big bang cosmology for example.
I am not trying to change your belief but hope you now understand why I dont see any point in holding up ancient recordings of personal opinion as a basis for forming a belief today.
Science defines Potential as *That* which may become reality. If Brahman exists in reality, it was preceded by the potential to exist. At best it can be said that Brahman is *That* which may become reality.
And Science can prove Potential is a factual and functional or latent condition, *necessary* as a pre-condition before anything can become expressed in reality, a term understood by scientists in every country and in all languages.
If they did, I suspect every scripture would differ in content. As it stands, the essential content is the same.
There is nothing about the interactive world of human beings, from all places and times, that is not covered in scripture. I don't think that would be the case if scriptures were simply written by people who wrote what they felt.
It is worth looking into them, without bias. You will definitely benefit.
It is a myth that human intelligence has developedf Tom simple to complex over time.
Don't worry about it. What I am putting across to you is not based on my theism.
And my theism is not fixed. If you can counter my points with something, I will have no choice but to accept it, even of I deny it. My denial would be based on keeping knowledge/information at bay. I could also not accept it due to ignorance.
Another argument from personal incredulity, then.I don't think that would be the case if scriptures were simply written by people who wrote what they felt.
They knew about medicine to the degree they know it now?They did know about cosmology, and they knew about surgery, and .medicine. At least to the degree they know it now.
Define "mental" and "spiritual" in this regard and how they differ from what materialists might consider to simply be forms and interpretations of the material?The basis of Darwinian evolution was known. Gradual change from one form to another takes place on the mental and spiritual platform, as opposed to the gross material one.
By this are you meaning that it is a myth that since homo sapiens arrived their intelligence has not developed from simple to complex, or do you mean that it is a myth that intelligence did not evolve from, say, pre-homo ancestors to the intelligence found in homo-sapiens?It is a myth that human intelligence has developedf Tom simple to complex over time.
No you have it exactly backwards / inverted. The "whole systems of government, from the streets, to huge world governments, and systems of law, and societal formations" were fromed in Babylon more than 2000 years before the Christian scriptures existed.... Whole systems of government, from the streets, to huge world governments, and systems of law, and societal formations, have their basis in scripture. ... Jan.
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaHistory_of_Babylonia.htm said:Around 2000 BC Hammurapi emerged as the ruler of Babylonia. He expanded the borders of the Empire and organized its laws into a written system, also known as the Code of Hammurapi. ... About 1270 BC, the Assyrians overpowered Babylonia. For the next 700 years, Babylonia was a lesser power as the Assyrians dominated the ancient world. ...
Around 626 BC, Babylonian independence was finally won from Assyria by a leader named Nabopolassar. Under his leadership, Babylonia again became the dominant imperial power in the Near East and thus entered into her "golden age." In 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II, the son of Nabopolassar, became ruler and reigned for 44 years. Under him the Babylonian Empire reached its greatest strength. Using the treasures which he took from other nations, Nebuchadnezzar built Babylon, the capital city of Babylonia, into one of the leading cities of the world. The famous hanging gardens of Babylon were known to the Greeks as one of the seven wonders of the world. ...
The Babylonians achieved a high level of civilization that made an impact on the whole known world. Sumerian culture was its basis, which later Babylonians regarded as traditional. In the area of religion, the Sumerians already had a system of gods, each with a main temple in each city. The chief gods were Anu, god of heaven; Enlil, god of the air; and Enki or Ea, god of the sea. Others were Shamash, the sungod; Sin, the moon-god; Ishtar, goddess of love and war; and Adad, the storm-god. The Amorites promoted the god Marduk at the city of Babylon, so that he became the chief god of the Babylonian religion, starting around 1100 BC.
Here is some good evidence that you are seriously lying to yourself, if not just to us. There is incredible differences in scriptures.If they did, I suspect every scripture would differ in content. As it stands, the essential content is the same.
Sure there is: computer science, the ethics of cloning, quantum mechanics, derivatives...There is nothing about the interactive world of human beings, from all places and times, that is not covered in scripture.
That's a nice sentiment, but not really a good argument.I don't think that would be the case if scriptures were simply written by people who wrote what they felt.
This is clearly wrong. There a huge things that we know know that are absent from every scripture. Where is dark energy in scripture? Where are there even other galaxies in any scripture?They did know about cosmology, and they knew about surgery, and .medicine. At least to the degree they know it now.
Do you have any real evidence of this aside from your wishful thinking?The basis of Darwinian evolution was known. Gradual change from one form to another takes place on the mental and spiritual platform, as opposed to the gross material one.
Then Brahman was preceded by the potential to become reality.From the definition Brahman is reality.
I am not changing any definition. Are you prepared to change the definition of Potential?Why do you find it necessary to change the definition.
I am, Potential is an abstraction and by definition must come before reality of Anything. That is the argument of Bohm's "Implicate".If something has potential, then it is possible it may become what it has the potential to be. That means it is preceded by events. Brahman is not preceded by anything, or one. Therefore like everything, including potential, comes from the perfect complete whole. Brahman. That is the definition. Work with it.
Of course it does, by definition, everything that has ever existed was preceded by the potential to exist. There is no difference in function, only in the semantic interpretation. God, Allah, Brahman, Potential, are all the same thing and you cannot ask, "will the real causality stand up".Science can only prove what it has the potential to prove. It has no jurisdiction in Brahman realization by definition. Jan.
Then Brahman was preceded by the potential to become reality.
Reality is a mathematical construct, a product of mathematical probability (potential), not the product of Intention.
I am not changing any definition. Are you prepared to change the definition of Potential?
I am, Potential is an abstraction and by definition must come before reality of Anything. That is the argument of Bohm's "Implicate".
Of course it does, by definition, everything that has ever existed was preceded by the potential to exist. There is no difference in function, only in the semantic interpretation. God, Allah, Brahman, Potential, are all the same thing and you cannot ask, "will the real causality stand up".
OK, if your definition of "Brahman" is "reality", then you don't get to smuggle in all the religious content of "Brahman".I agree that as per definition Brahman IS reality.
This is exactly what I meant when I wrote of religious people retreating to no content in an attempt to win an argument and then smuggle religious content in later.I think you're quite correct when you say ''potential'' has no consciousness, Unfortunately you cannot steal the definition of ''Brahman'' to account for
your worldview, because Brahman is self-existence, unchanging, and complete to the greatest extent. Not lacking, or omitting anything, which includes consciousness.
Then, per definition it was preceded by Potential.I agree that as per definition Brahman IS reality.
Those are YOUR words, not mine. My words are Potential is "that which may become reality"Firstly,'reality becoming reality' is a nonsense.
That's correct. My use of "Potential" in this discussion is in the abstract and the Implicate is the result of several potentials creating a condition which then becomes expressed (explicated) in OUR reality. Your scriptural quotes are basically nonsense, if you attach an intelligent emotional mind to the abstraction named Brahman, or God, or Allah or FSM. Take your pick from that *grab bag*Secondly if reality is a product of potential, then ''potential'' is not a reality.
You're basically talking nonsense.
W4U said,
Are you prepared to change the definition of Potential?
Obviously you have no clue as to the fundamental concept that Potential is "That which may become reality", and Potential in various forms has real application in every phase of life and the sciences. Look it up! And you want to change the definition of potential?To what? I'm not concerned what it's an argument of, it makes no practical sense.
Let me complete that sentence. "there is no BEFORE, and there is no AFTER, Brahman has always EXISTED. Do you disagree with that?Brahman, by definition, doesn't come under things ''that has ever existed''. There is no BEFORE, and there is no AFTER.
Yep, from Universal Potential the (to us) visible universe has come‘The invisible (Brahman) is the Full;...
...the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come.Full - not lacking or omitting anything; complete.
Complete - to the greatest extent or degree; total.
So, you admit that our reality "has come out of the Full Brahman", IOW Our Reality was preceded by Brahman, just like Potential?The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’
I am stealing from the definition of Brahman? Another Trumpian misdirection. You really need to stop that cheap sales trick. As sales and contract manager for a multi million retail chain, I studied *sales techniques*. I wouldn't have hired you. It would have been unethical. Your sales pitch would be, " This is an intelligent machine and will automatically brew your coffee, just by reciting the Veda.I think you're quite correct when you say ''potential'' has no consciousness, Unfortunately you cannot steal the definition of ''Brahman'' to account for your worldview, because Brahman is self-existence, unchanging, and complete to the greatest extent. Not lacking, or omitting anything, which includes consciousness.
Are you prepared to change the definition of Potential? Try to use Brahman to create an electrical charge. I have no need for your bag, but I wish you good luck with your bag.[/quote]Fraid you'll have to find a new bag. jan.
Then, per definition it was preceded by Potential.
Potential (which is not conscious itself), includes the latent ability for consciousness, which is expressed in our reality in many species. BUT NOT ALL SPECIES or THINGS have the potential for consciousness or intelligence. Which negates your definition and application of Brahman as an all pervasive universal consciousness. If everything is FULL of Brahman, why are not all expressions of Brahman sentient or conscious?
If the abstraction Brahman is so real, why don't you introduce us. I have introduced you to Potential as an abstraction of "That which may become (our) reality".
OK, if your definition of "Brahman" is "reality", then you don't get to smuggle in all the religious content of "Brahman".
So Brahman cannot be an explanation for reality or anything in it. Nor does the existence of reality, of some sort, give us reason to believe in a god of some sort.
So you have reduces "Brahman" to absolutely no content.
And we have a word for it already: "reality".The definition is not an explanation of reality, it the meaning of reality. It is what reality, is.
Now you're starting to sound like Spellbound.Reality is real,...
No sh1t, Sherlock... reality exists? Whodathunk it! Mine eyes have been opened to the glory of reality! There I was, thinking reality was nothing but the non-existent, and your unique insight into its nature has now awoken me from that slumber....and it exists.
So your entire proof of God's existence is now: God is defined as reality; reality exists; therefore God exists?So whether you want to call it God, FSM, potential, etc... It exists.
The problem is knowing what it is.
I think what he means is that it has no explanatory power - you have simply exchanged a word ("reality") for another ("Brahman") but in doing so you have not actually added anything - so the content of that label over any previously existing one is zero.No. Brahman is one, as opposed to zero.
Yep. This is my conclusion too.I think what he means is that it has no explanatory power - you have simply exchanged a word ("reality") for another ("Brahman") but in doing so you have not actually added anything - so the content of that label over any previously existing one is zero.