What does the word (god) mean to you?

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Not sure you understand my perspective yet. I don’t know whether a god of some type exists or not, no one can show; so until then the concept is fantasy. This is as I have said already, a factual statement.

No can also show whether the mind exists either

Science doesn’t operate through qualifications only observation. If the observations cannot be independently verified then the qualifications are irrelevant.

they are verified by qualified persons (once again - I don't mean in the institutional sense)

Your claim is that some people can perceive gods and others cannot and those who cannot must accept the claims of those who claim they can perceive.

No I claim that as a general principle the perception on anything is dependant on a person being qualified to perceivethe evidence

Again what is the proof that those who claim to have perception of gods do indeed have such perception?

symptomized by results in character that cannot be immitated for long periods or in many cases even approached

Without an independent and verifiable mechanism, we have no reason to believe the claims of perception and cannot distinguish such claims from the more credible explanation of deluded fantasy.

depends what you are prepared to accept as a mechanism - like for instance the highschool drop out's problem with the electron is that they don't accept the mechanism

This is irrelevant. Take a class in logic and come back when you understand why your claims are gibberish.

It is logical - there is no object that doesn't exist in this world that virtually all people in all circumstances desire to have

The activity generated by neural networks is measurable. It is these properties of the brain that we label as mind. The god label on the other hand has no underlying foundations that we can observe or measure.

so in other words it can be shown how the neural activities of a mother crocadile causes her to roll her eggs in her mouth to assist her babies to hatch?

 

[VitalOne]

The word 'God' means the absolute truth, the way, the beginning, the middle, the end, the origin of existence, reality itself, one without second, neither this, nor that, the only real existence, just as it is, etc...

oh yeah Vedantic Hinduism

 

[superluminal]

No I claim that as a general principle the perception on anything is dependant on a person being qualified to perceive the evidence

Bollocks.

How qualified do you have to be to stick your finger in a lamp socket (go on, try it) to percieve the evidence for what we call electrons?

How qualified do you have to be to percieve the evidence of gravitation?

If your claim is that "god" or whatever it is you babble on about (universal intelligence?) is so subtle and elusive as to be unpercievable except by the most esoteric training, that dosen't require evidence or repeatable results, then I class you as delusional.

Your statements are always the same, and you can't back up one of them.

 

[Cris]

Light,

No can also show whether the mind exists either

Yes they can. I’ve dealt with that already.

they are verified by qualified persons (once again - I don't mean in the institutional sense)

Yet you inappropriately made the comparison with science and clearly there is no equivalent to what you are claiming. Qualified in your sense appears to means self qualified and obviously that cannot be acceptable.

No I claim that as a general principle the perception on anything is dependant on a person being qualified to perceivethe evidence

In the case of perceiving a god how do you distinguish between someone “qualified” and someone who only imagines they perceive? Answered below but not very well.

symptomized by results in character that cannot be immitated for long periods or in many cases even approached

How can you be sure? What is your proof? What examples can you provide?

depends what you are prepared to accept as a mechanism - like for instance the highschool drop out's problem with the electron is that they don't accept the mechanism

In that scenario there is the widely accepted scientific method. What recognizable and authoritative method can you show that ensures that someone who claims to be qualified at perceiving a god is in fact qualified?

It is logical - there is no object that doesn't exist in this world that virtually all people in all circumstances desire to have

Oh dear. The absence of an entry in a set doesn’t preclude the possibility of an entry. You are invalidly claiming impossibility so your argument fails. Note that I have no desire for a god or feel a need for them. So doesn’t your claim fail on those grounds anyway?

so in other words it can be shown how the neural activities of a mother crocadile causes her to roll her eggs in her mouth to assist her babies to hatch?

It is irrelevant what the crocodile thinks only that what we call mind is the label we give to the result of neural activity that physically exists. Don’t confuse the map for the territory.

 

[spidergoat]

Nirvana is a state of mind, but it is not supernatural.

The Tao doesn't do anything, it is considered a passive property of existence, therefore it is the polar opposite of the idea of a God.

I agree that Taoism is somewhat mystical in nature, in that it proposes that the source of all things is darkness and emptyness, but if the idea of God were universal, wouldn't all religions concieve of it in similar ways?

Nature doesn't need metaphors, obviously, humans do.

 

[spidergoat]

If the commonality of an idea supports it's being real, what about all those children with imaginary friends? Do you propose that imaginary friends are real?

 

[rjr6]

.

Explains what? It doesn’t matter what science explains. The point is there is absolutely nothing that indicates a god might exist, or needs to exist – the idea is pure fantasy.?

When you say absolutely nothing, I take it to mean that the existence of God remains scientifically unproven, correct? I agree the idea is supernatural, but that dosen't make scientific exploration of the universe invalid, or render it meaningless. A supernatural view of the universe does not require scientific proof, nor does it lend itself to this type of investigation.
What type of proof would be needed to prove there is a God? Since he is supernatural, then you wouldn't go about using science to prove his existence. If your religion is science than there is no proof, at least not yet.

 

[Cris]

Rjr6,

When you say absolutely nothing, I take it to mean that the existence of God remains scientifically unproven, correct?

Not sure how you “unprove” something. Science doesn’t do that. There is either evidence for something or there isn’t. At the current time no one has yet presented anything convincing to show a god exists, has existed, might exist, or can exist.

I agree the idea is supernatural,

This term doesn’t actually refer to anything. Its origin comes from the statements above and a stubborn ignorant insistence that a god must exist and if we can’t find it in the real world then there must be something else, i.e. a mysterious and invisible supernatural. It is again pure fantasy.

but that dosen't make scientific exploration of the universe invalid, or render it meaningless.

But that is separate to the issue of gods.

A supernatural view of the universe does not require scientific proof, nor does it lend itself to this type of investigation.

Just how does one go about investigating a fantasy?

What type of proof would be needed to prove there is a God?

For it to announce itself on CNN would be a good start. Beyond that I have no idea; it’s a theist dream so it is for them to support their assertions.

Since he is supernatural, then you wouldn't go about using science to prove his existence.

This unnecessary fantasy concept is invented entirely out of desperation to explain a concept that has zero merit or credibility.

If your religion is science than there is no proof, at least not yet.

I see no justification for any optimism.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris,

“ No can also show whether the mind exists either ”

Yes they can. I’ve dealt with that already.

You said the mind exists by reductionist paradigms of neurology - the problem is that such paradigms don't exist - the neurological processes (evidenced by empiricism, distinct from theorized by empricism) that cause a mother crocadle to roll her eggs in her mouth do not exist

“ they are verified by qualified persons (once again - I don't mean in the institutional sense) ”

Yet you inappropriately made the comparison with science and clearly there is no equivalent to what you are claiming. Qualified in your sense appears to means self qualified and obviously that cannot be acceptable.

No I didn't say self qualified

“ No I claim that as a general principle the perception on anything is dependant on a person being qualified to perceivethe evidence ”

In the case of perceiving a god how do you distinguish between someone “qualified” and someone who only imagines they perceive? Answered below but not very well.


“ symptomized by results in character that cannot be immitated for long periods or in many cases even approached ”

How can you be sure? What is your proof? What examples can you provide?

Numerous sources - I can only assume that you are not familiar with scriptures since its a common topic that is dilineated

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

“ depends what you are prepared to accept as a mechanism - like for instance the highschool drop out's problem with the electron is that they don't accept the mechanism ”

In that scenario there is the widely accepted scientific method. What recognizable and authoritative method can you show that ensures that someone who claims to be qualified at perceiving a god is in fact qualified?

In short ...

BS 5.38: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is Śyāmasundara, Kṛṣṇa Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love.

"One should render transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord favorably and without desire for material profit or gain through fruitive activities or philosophical speculation. That is called pure devotional service." Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu 1.1.11

in other words one has the vision of not being swayed by the regular trappings of mundane life, which is the default position of one who is situated on an unsatisfactory level of spiritual performance

Siksastakam 4
"O Almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor to enjoy beautiful women. Nor do I want any number of followers. What I want only is the causeless mercy of Your devotional service in my life, birth after birth."

“ It is logical - there is no object that doesn't exist in this world that virtually all people in all circumstances desire to have ”

Oh dear. The absence of an entry in a set doesn’t preclude the possibility of an entry. You are invalidly claiming impossibility so your argument fails. Note that I have no desire for a god or feel a need for them. So doesn’t your claim fail on those grounds anyway?

The tautological argument extends beyond a mere stated disbelief or belief in god - it is evidenced by everyone's desire to have an experience beyond mundane thresholds of perfection - a person may argue that god is a fantastic entity that can easily be dismissed, but they will still remain captivated by depictions of fantasy - like for instance your own previously stated determination to seek eternity by downloading the human self on to electronic media and thus experience eternity - in other words you may deride the concepts behind theism, but you will seek out the fulfillment of such concepts through inferior means (because you are a little more intelligent than your average person perhaps you are not satisfied with the standard mundane offerings of money sex and false prestige that is deified by advertising, and instead have taken shelter of technological advancement which is no less saturated with idols, rituals and paraphernalia of worship than religion)
..... To get back to tautology however, because such "fantasies" are inseperable from the self, an object in this world must fulfill such a need, since all our other needs are satisfied by this world (it would seem unusual that this one need, which is very integral to our lives, would not be fulfilled) - theism stands a better chance of meeting such criteria since it has a historical precedent over technology, which even at its current level of application cannot prevent suicide, depression and other anomolies of the self. (Its not like technologically advanced countries enjoy a lower rate of such things .... on the contrary they seem to be higher)

 

[superluminal]

Right on, LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No I claim that as a general principle the perception on anything is dependant on a person being qualified to perceive the evidence ”

Bollocks.

How qualified do you have to be to stick your finger in a lamp socket (go on, try it) to percieve the evidence for what we call electrons?

Well apparently it takes around a hundred years (amongst persons who are highly intelligent and scientifically quallified) to perceive such evidence because the beginnings for the term electron were first suggested in 1874 (and backed up by empirical investigations in 1894) while benjamin franklin was getting electrocuted with his kite during thunderstorms in the 1700's

How qualified do you have to be to percieve the evidence of gravitation?

Newton was qualified - thats what makes his collaborations of evidence unique and substantial in relation to gravity

If your claim is that "god" or whatever it is you babble on about (universal intelligence?) is so subtle and elusive as to be unpercievable except by the most esoteric training, that dosen't require evidence or repeatable results, then I class you as delusional.

And it is repeatable

Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
BG- 4-10

Your statements are always the same, and you can't back up one of them.

Something must get lost in the translation

 

[superluminal]

Well apparently it takes around a hundred years (amongst persons who are highly intelligent and scientifically quallified) to perceive such evidence because the beginnings for the term electron were first suggested in 1874 (and backed up by empirical investigations in 1894) while benjamin franklin was getting electrocuted with his kite during thunderstorms in the 1700's



Newton was qualified - thats what makes his collaborations of evidence unique and substantial in relation to gravity

Ok. Let's look at this. By percieving evidence, all we mean is that one can see lightning or get electrocuted, not understand it. People have been percieving evidence for what we call electrons since there have been people. It is a real, measurable phenomena that humans eventually came to realize was the effect of electrons flowing.

Now, I believe that you are saying that the evidence for god is all around us and we are percieving it, but just not interpreting it correctly. Is this a fair summation of your stance?

 

[draqon]

 

[lightgigantic]

spidergoat

Nirvana is a state of mind, but it is not supernatural.

Maybe you should tell us what defintions for nirvana you are working out of because it appears that you are not using the standard ones - the only arguments that I have heard from buddhists (and even then this is kind of an advanced topic of discussion) that nirvana is not transcendental is that nirvana has no qualities - in other words for the conditoned entity nirvana is transcendental, but for the perfected entity it is not (because nirvana is neither transcendental nor non- transcendental)

The Tao doesn't do anything, it is considered a passive property of existence, therefore it is the polar opposite of the idea of a God.

There are descriptions of passive energies of god that are non-different from him

BS 5.40: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upaniṣads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth.

I agree that Taoism is somewhat mystical in nature,

somewhat mystical ????
try a q & a session like this in an empirical environment ....

Monk: What is Tao?
Hsiang-yen: A dragon is singing in the ancient forest! [or dry woods, dry wood, old wood, etc. - the variations have persisted.]

Monk: What is Tao?
Yun-men: Go! [Chang Chung Yuan has "Go away!"]

Monk Ho (later Chao-chou): What is Tao?
Nan-chuan: Your everyday mind!

Monk: What is Tao?
Kuei-shan: Mindlessness is Tao.

Monk: I do not understand.
Kuei-shan: You need only grasp the one who does not understand.

Monk: Who is the one who does not understand?
Kuei-shan: No one else but your very own self.

and if that wasn't enough

"He who replies to one asking about Tao, does not know Tao. Although one may hear about Tao, he does not really hear about Tao. There is no such thing as asking about Tao. There is no such thing as answering such questions. To ask a question which cannot be answered is vain. To answer a question which cannot be answered is unreal. And one who thus meets the vain with the unreal is one who has no physical perception of the universe, and no mental perception of the origin of existence."

(Chuang-tzu, p. 289, H.A. Giles translation, Shanghai, 1926).

anyway there are very good reasons why I didn't take up taoism with any great degree of seriousness .....

in that it proposes that the source of all things is darkness and emptyness, but if the idea of God were universal, wouldn't all religions concieve of it in similar ways?

I would advocate that taoism is dealing with the impersonal energy of god (brahman) which is defined as all pervasive, eternal, unchanging, formless etce etc and is a basis for many apparently unressolvable statements in the upanisads

Iso 5: The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.

as well as

there is no existence beyond Brahman
(Chändogya Upanisad 3.14.1).

everything is an expansion of the energy of the Supreme Absolute Truth, Brahman.
(Visnu Purana)

and many more too numerous to mention

Anyway the "what" of taoism may be contentious but the means to it are undeniably linked in self realization which innvolved conquering lower modes of nature (greed, lust etc)

 

[Oniw17]

Just curious .......
Why would nature need a metaphor?
Usually it works the other way - nature is a metaphor for god

Because the people who made God up couldn't understand why certain things happened in nature, so they needed a metaphor? God is perfect? Nature is perfect because it maintains balance between the prey and the predator, and promotes the stronger genes to live on, therefore, the species is ever evolving and becoming more perfect. Why doesn't God like homosexuals? Is there a natural purpose to homosexual sex? God creates storms? Storms are a natural part of the world. Anti-materialism for God? Materialism goes against our nature because our instincts don't go beyond survival and loyalty to the family/pack, which, by nature material wealth is not necessary. You see, a perfect metaphor.

Nirvana is a state of mind, but it is not supernatural.

The Tao doesn't do anything, it is considered a passive property of existence, therefore it is the polar opposite of the idea of a God.

I agree that Taoism is somewhat mystical in nature, in that it proposes that the source of all things is darkness and emptyness, but if the idea of God were universal, wouldn't all religions concieve of it in similar ways?

Nature doesn't need metaphors, obviously, humans do.

Isn't darkness and emptyness what space would be without planets? perhaps before the big bang?

Also, lightning:
I thought brahmans were in hinduism and so is the upanisad? And isn't taoism about becoming more natural, afterall, Laozi said nature is perfect.

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

Ok. Let's look at this. By percieving evidence, all we mean is that one can see lightning or get electrocuted, not understand it. People have been percieving evidence for what we call electrons since there have been people. It is a real, measurable phenomena that humans eventually came to realize was the effect of electrons flowing.

and coming to that realization (the functional aspects of an electron, after all it does more than merely electrocute you) was depending on coming to an increased level of qualification (its not like the nature of being electrocuted changed any)

Now, I believe that you are saying that the evidence for god is all around us and we are percieving it, but just not interpreting it correctly. Is this a fair summation of your stance?

Actually most people do not perceive it - they are merged in material activities

When the living entity desires to exploit matter, he is covered by the three modes of nature. Thus he concocts different philosophical, political and social explanations of reality but never understands the Absolute Truth, Lord Krsna, who is beyond the contaminated perception of the material senses. One who is entangled in the network of material designations, such as race, nationality, sectarian religion, political affiliation, etc., is absorbed in the experience of combining his body and other bodies with material sense objects, thinking these sense objects to be sources of happiness and satisfaction.
Purport SB 11.7.7

th e upper level of material existence is called sattva guna (mode of goodness, the other two being passion and ignorance), which basically breaks down to a person who finds happiness in the standard definitons of morality.

SB 11.13.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The three modes of material nature, namely goodness, passion and ignorance, pertain to material intelligence and not to the spirit soul. By development of material goodness one can conquer the modes of passion and ignorance, and by cultivation of transcendental goodness one may free oneself even from material goodness.

and

SB 11.13.6: Until one revives one's direct knowledge of the spirit soul and drives away the illusory identification with the material body and mind caused by the three modes of nature, one must cultivate those things in the mode of goodness. By increasing the mode of goodness, one automatically can understand and practice religious principles, and by such practice transcendental knowledge is awakened.

so basically to cut a long story short, perceiving happens on th emode of goodness and correct understanding of evidence is interpreting that perception correctly is suddha (purified or constant) sattva (goodness) or transcendence.

When you are free from the conception of gross and subtle bodies and when your senses are free from all influences of the modes of material nature, you will realize your pure form in My association. At that time you will be situated in pure consciousness.
SB 3.9.33

Hopefully this clears up the distinction between a religious practioner and a perfected religious practioner

 

[superluminal]

Well LG, I am clearly not qualified to comment on such advanced concepts. I'm happy for you that all of that means something to you.

Now, did you really expect any other sort of response? That post was as useless to me as me answering a question from you on the ideas behind microprocessor systems design with paragraphs from the article "Advanced Microprocessor Systems Control using Proportional Integral Derivative Algorithms and Self Adapting Predictive Analysis".

Get over yourself and speak english.

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

“ Now, I believe that you are saying that the evidence for god is all around us and we are percieving it, but just not interpreting it correctly. Is this a fair summation of your stance? ”

Actually most people do not perceive it - they are merged in material activities

(in other words the evidence for god is there and we do not even perceive it)


th e upper level of material existence is called sattva guna (mode of goodness, the other two being passion and ignorance), which basically breaks down to a person who finds happiness in the standard definitons of morality.

(now I am giving an indication how one can come to the platform of perception, which BTW onceit is reached, is still a stage before correct understanding of evidence)

so basically to cut a long story short, perceiving happens on th emode of goodness and correct understanding of evidence is interpreting that perception correctly is suddha (purified or constant) sattva (goodness) or transcendence.

(so the answer to your question is that the evidence is there for the existence, but due to an infatuation with material existence (modes of passion and ignorance) as a means of enjoyment people are blind to it. Amongst those that are qualified to perceive it, difficulties also arise from attempting to interpret it

Hopefully this clears up the distinction between a religious practioner and a perfected religious practioner

(a religious practitioner is someone who perceives evidence of god due to having a higher interest in life - ie disassociated from passionate and ignorant activities - a perfected religious practioner is someone who can properly work with that evidence)


This link may help understand the modes of nature

http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=512

(BTW science is essentially considered to be in the mode of goodness because it is an enquiry into the nature of existence - science only becomes ignorant when it is utilized for the pursuits of temporary bodily pleasures or passionate when it is utilized for economic development etc)

 

[superluminal]

Now that was much better. Thank you.

 

[SkinWalker]

I looked at this thread a couple of times since it was started and found the endless tautologies and some refusal by others to define a god as anything other than a fictional character (I'm paraphrasing) to be a bit exasperating. So I've avoided participating...

Still, I feel compelled to offer this simple definition of the word "god:" a perceived supernatural agent with supernatural powers, perhaps omnipotent, that one feels compelled to appease or appeal to or believes that others must.

Is there really any need to go further than that? I suppose if you find the comfort in the endless tautological justifications of mumbo jumbo that get presented in double-speak by some, then the answer is yes. If, however, you are not encumbered by the fantastical and the magical and are grounded in reality, the most parsimonious explanation is the best.

Either way, I find it useful to examine why people believe, or more accurately, why people think they believe, in various gods -both now and in the past. Pressures by their societies and cultures, pressures by the elite class, a need for comfort, the desire to live beyond a single, brief existence in the universe, and so on. Not to mention the almost certain physiological explanation for religious thought and experience: a trick of the mind that drives us to seek out patterns in all we do and succumb to pareidolia. Probably all of the many thousands of gods of humanity, past and present, are anthropogenic. We see images of ourselves in clouds, rocks, pancakes, and the sands of Mars (pareidolia), so it's not surprising we see images of ourselves in our gods.