Define God

JLN wrote:

The dualism of our distinction between order and chaos is itself problematic.

I agree. But in the attempt to define god as 'the living everything', we have to view this dualism as one singular movement. One "pulse" wherein chaos gives birth to symmetry as easily as the other way around. 'The living everything' contains all dualism within it, because it is defined so.

Perhaps the idea of 'the living 'everything' can be tested using conventional methods. Logic should be applickable since it's contents is clearly definable.

It does make sense to see things in terms of order and chaos, but the line of thought does lead to a paradoxical existence perhaps described as chaotic symmetry.

But all dualisms add up to one sigularity which in turn forms a dualistic counterpart to another, which in turn forms..... Even if this process is infinite it makes sense to form an abstract idea of it as one motion. Of this motion, biological life is but a small part.

So I maintain my claim that it is logical to assume that 'everything' when seen as a sigularity, is a living singularity.

But life doesn't imply consciousness. We know for a fact that some 'sub-individual' (I don't know the english term for what I have in mind here) parts of 'the living everything' do retain consciousness. We know these parts both enter and leave existence, and this enables us to conclude that there is consciousness within 'the living everything'. But we cannot conclude that 'the living everything' is a conscious entity.

But I haven't given up trying Smile

0 Replies

Hehe.. you're right about chaos and randomness, JL. One does provide the other. Sorry about that, and thanks for not letting me get away with it. Smile

The rest of that post sounds right to me as well. Further, if chaos and symmetry are mutually dependent on eachother, are they really separate, except in the realm of ideas?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

But life doesn't imply consciousness. We know for a fact that some 'sub-individual' (I don't know the english term for what I have in mind here) parts of 'the living everything' do retain consciousness. We know these parts both enter and leave existence, and this enables us to conclude that there is consciousness within 'the living everything'. But we cannot conclude that 'the living everything' is a conscious entity.

Cyracuz,

Maybe everything that is not conscious is a projection of consciousness. If there is no conscious awareness of something, does it exist?

0 Replies

Cyracuz, it would seem to me that, like all "contrast sets", chaos and order are mutually dependent on each; each would make no sense without the other. Our dualism directs us to see the unitary world "in terms of" opposites.
That does not mean, of course, that the world is bifurcated; it is a unitary reality, but it is intellectually apprehended only dualistically. The only other way to "apprehend" it is by means of an immediate intuition, and the only way to express this intuition is by means of paradox which offends the inherently dualistic intellect.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Maybe everything that is not conscious is a projection of consciousness. If there is no conscious awareness of something, does it exist?

From a subjective viewpoint, the answer may be no. If I have no knowledge of something, it doesn't exist in my world.

But it may be that everything that is not conscious is indeed a projection of consciousness. Our image of reality is a residue, a representation of the real world, relayed through our senses. Our senses are designed to translate wavelengths of energies emitted by matter into images and sounds. Without our particular disposition any distinction that seems logical to us, -earth/sky or solid/fluid etc, may be completely meaningless.

So I'd say that something exists regardless of consciousness, but that it is consciousness, not the thing itself, that decides what that something is in the eyes of the beholder.

JLN wrote:

...
That does not mean, of course, that the world is bifurcated; it is a unitary reality, but it is intellectually apprehended only dualistically....

I agree. But would you say that this unitary reality, when thought of as a singularity, can be called alive?

0 Replies

JL,

Would you consider "immediate intuition" and intellect to be another contrast set?

Cyracuz,

You state that our image of reality is "a representation of the real world, relayed through our senses".

Is there any other way to know the world? What could be more real?
(Sorry, I'm not being too clear. That's the best I can do, for now.)

0 Replies

I understand the question, echi.

Sensory perception and scientific measurement, where both are directly possible, may paint different pictures of events.

Imagine that there was a power blackout in an entire city. Then four minutes later there was a solar eclipse.

According to sensory perception, the story would be that the sun went dark four minutes after the power went out.
Scientific measurement has provided us with the knowledge that light requires eight minutes to travel from the earth to the sun, and in that case the sun went dark four minutes before the power went out.

Which of the two explanations is 'reality'? Both, is my answer. In the first answer we rely soley on sensory perception, and the reality is formed by our location in space, among other things.
Through scientific measurement we can hypothetically negate the aspect of location, putting ourselves both on the earth and on the sun simultaneously.

Come to think, scientific measurement is really nothing more that a tool to translate the invisible into something we can grasp. An extension of our senses that enables us to 'see' what our senses cannot. In that respect, it is perhaps more correct to regard the ability in humans to relate to these abstract concepts as a sixth sense, rather than an ability.

0 Replies

echi, good question. Yes, I would consider mystical intuition and logical intellect to be contrast sets. At least that is so as I use them: one is non-dualistic and the other is dualistic, and those are their (complementary) essential qualities.

Cyracuz. I can talk about the human mind and its two contrasting approaches to understanding because I have (or am) a human mind, but when it comes to the nature of Brahma (your Everything), I dare not decided whether or not it is alive. That would be too presumptuous. I will go so far as to suggest, however, that it is probably beyond that distinction; it is neither alive, as we know or define, life, nor not alive (it certainly isn't "dead").
When I think of consciousness as a property of "Brahma" I am inclined to think that since I AM PART of Brahma and am consciousness (Atman), that consciousness is a property of Brahma.

0 Replies

JL

I've had similar thoughts. Consciousness and life are both properties of the living everything. I like to refer to it this way because it's like starting with a clean sheet. I'm hoping to avoid any misconseptions I have about the ancient concept of Brahma getting entangled in my little experiement. But I do not object to you referring to it as Brahma, since it seems we are pretty much in agreement of what we're talking about.

After all, my aim is to try to understand God not only on the basis of one religion, but on the basis of all our systems and traditions of thought. And you talk about you being presumptous. Smile

About the hindu gods, I like to think of them as abstract manifestations of forces that together form the living everything, Brahma.

Then there's always the consideration that on sub-atomic levels, the particles that make a stone may be just as 'alive' as those that form the organs that enable consciousness.

0 Replies

I was gonna stop butting-in, like this, but, Cyracuz, you made me think of something (again).
Since our observation is limited by the rate at which we experience the flow of time, isn't it possible that we are surrounded by life forms that, to us, appear as inanimate?

0 Replies

Interesting thought. I think it is possible.

We percieve the world in four dimentions. One temporal dimension and three spatial.

Modern theories of quantum mechanics suggest that there are a total of eleven dimensions. We live in all eleven, but we are only aware of four.

If we believe in evolution theories it is easy to imagine a time when what was to become the human species was aware of only three of the dimensions, oblivious to the flow of time. Unlike height, width and length, duration is something that requires a more complicated consciousness to understand. If this ability has evolved, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to percieve the other three also have, and that more might evolve in the future.

0 Replies

Posted previously here:

neologist wrote:

. . . our perceptions of reality are limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of the existence of other 'dimensions', we are unable to accurately articulate their nature, much less explore their boundaries. God, if there is a God, by definition must transcend those boundaries. It would therefore be the height of arrogance on our part to presume anything about the nature of God, His powers, or His dealings with mankind. Our only hope is that He would communicate with us in a form easily understood by the most unsophisticated among us.

I believe it may be said that God fabricated reality for us to have meaningful experience.

0 Replies

I am unsure what to make of your statememnt neo.

Quote:

God, if there is a God, by definition must transcend those boundaries. It would therefore be the height of arrogance on our part to presume anything about the nature of God, His powers, or His dealings with mankind.

I agree that God as my idea of 'living everything' and JL's Brahma by definition trancend all boudaries. But I am not sure that is the God you have in mind. If you share a similar idea I think we are in agreement.

But I think that in order to understand the abstract idea of God we need to "think away" the subjective angle of our human disposition.

0 Replies

God is: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-present and the only one worthy to judge you. that's what God is to me.

0 Replies

This may have been posted before:

"God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs"

It's a bit strange, but it can make a person think, which is never a bad thing. Or is it?

Churches, and why does the Vatican need to hoard so much gold?

And what about mosquitoes?

0 Replies

rockpie wrote:

God is: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-present and the only one worthy to judge you. that's what God is to me.

Doesnt sound like the God of the Old Testament then

Quote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most upleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Well that's Richard Dawkins view anyway, and he knows more about these things than I do, so I'm not going to disagree.

0 Replies

well the big G was probably a little cheesed off after Adam n Eve ruined his whole ''perfect world'' thing so he was just trying to get rid of sin. then he came up with the plan of sending his son to save us instead ofa massive flood.

and before you say it, yes that does contradict the all-knowing and all-loving bit, so i say it was all part of his plan to give us the freedom of choice in whether to believe in him.

0 Replies

The God of the literally interpreted Bible is not worthy of my attention. I do not waste my time repudiating fictions. But I will study them as possibly edifying parables.
But the approach Cyracuz is taking here is no waste of time. His approach is honest, exploratory and at least consistent with science and logic, if not directly supported by them.
I like his statement: "...I think that in order to understand the abstract idea of God we need to "think away" the subjective angle of our human disposition."
I "think away" that subjective disposition at least temporarily by considering God or Brahma to be "that which IS at the deepest level and largest scale. These are, by definition, beyond my human capacity. That's as far as I can go toward an "objective" conception of God.
I prefer to reverse the procedure: I feel that my only chance to "know" Brahma is by knowing MY true nature (my Atman) which is Brahma's reflection at the personal SUBJECTIVE level-scale which is me. In this way, to personally understand the concrete nature of God, we need to "think back" "the subjective angle of our human disposition."

0 Replies

I think you make an important point JL.

To think away subjectivity is only half the path, so to speak. It is a journey into the abtract, where ideas exist as something pure and easily distinguishable. To journey back to subjectivity while preserving the 'purity' of the ideas one has accumulated, is maybe the hardest part of it all.

But in exploring the 'objective conception of God, I wonder if it is possible by logic, to assign the traits to our imaginary singularity which are so often assigned to God in theology. To logically explain what it means that God is "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-present and the only one worthy to judge you", to quote rockpie.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I think you make an important point JL.

To think away subjectivity is only half the path, so to speak. It is a journey into the abtract, where ideas exist as something pure and easily distinguishable. To journey back to subjectivity while preserving the 'purity' of the ideas one has accumulated, is maybe the hardest part of it all.

But in exploring the 'objective conception of God, I wonder if it is possible by logic, to assign the traits to our imaginary singularity which are so often assigned to God in theology. To logically explain what it means that God is "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-present and the only one worthy to judge you", to quote rockpie.

bollocks if God was omniscient and omnipotent then he would know what he was going to do in creating the world and therefore could not change his mind or be omnipotent.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know