About the first cause

[Sunstone]

Hmm. I don't know too much if any about mysticism either. You're view is as good as mine.

Well, I think what these particular mystics were doing, Carlita, is assuming that because something (e.g. their "experience of deity") felt real that deity was real. However, it's the brain, and not reality itself, that creates that feeling something is real. So, the mere feeling something is real happens to be an unreliable guide to whether or not it really is real.

 

[George-ananda]

/Shrugs/ Is it worth exploring? Kinda like going in a circle thinking that the next round there may be an exit. Then again, there could be. (Reminds me of the movie Labrinth. "You take too many things for granted!"

It is absolutely worth exploring to me. I want to know about the universe and my place in it. And I do believe the Vedic tradition teaches us just that through teachers who can truly see beyond the mundane level.

 

[jonathan180iq]

One question only. (surprinsgly) How do you measure an entity?

I don't know what definition you're using for entity, but it's just anything that exists, as far as I'm concerned. If something exists, it can be measured. How to measure that thing depends entirely on what we know, what we are measuring, and what tools we have. 200 years ago there was no way to measure electrons and protons, right? The knowledge and the tools simply weren't available - but they were made available through discovery.

With theism, every time a claim is made about the nature or substance of a god character, those claims have been measured and we've found nothing to make us keep looking for more substance. Instead, the definitions and explanations of those god characters have been moved to make them immeasurable. But absolutely everything else that I can think of that exists has been and can be measured.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know what definition you're using for entity, but it's just anything that exists, as far as I'm concerned. If something exists, it can be measured. How to measure that thing depends entirely on what we know, what we are measuring, and what tools we have. 200 years ago there was no way to measure electrons and protons, right? The knowledge and the tools simply weren't available - but they were made available through discovery.

With theism, every time a claim is made about the nature or substance of a god character, those claims have been measured and we've found nothing to make us keep looking for more substance. Instead, the definitions and explanations of those god characters have been moved to make them immeasurable. But absolutely everything else that I can think of that exists has been and can be measured.

In the OP, I'm refering to entity as a spirit. It isn't something that can be measured. To many atheists, it doesn't exist or can't be known to exist. I'm basing it off the definitions that an entity or spirit can actually do and say things but have no body or anything to which we can confirm it (or he or she).

Going off of that, people need sacred text or nature or whatever means to use as reference and conclude there is an entity. Without those points of reference, how would people know an entity exist, that its a creator, and that it some how does and says things into existence.

 

[Janardena]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

Why exclude sacred text?

That we may be ignorant of God's existence, says nothing about whether He exists or not.
We could, however, posit a great mind, when we observe the intricate information, and logistical system inside a cell.
But whether we call that mind God, or just, a great mind, or natural forces, makes no difference. Arguing whether or not God exists is just something we do as conditioned being.
By ''conditioned'' I mean using our own reasoning and logic, to draw conclusions, believing them to be sound. Our ambition should not be to just simply acquire facts, but to determine what the truth is. While facts may be true, they cannot tell us what is truth.

I can understand your frustration with sacred text.
When we first begin to read texts, with a view to understanding them, we do so from our own perspective, and experiences. This can be a blocker if we are not careful.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I exclude sacred text because I wondered if god can be assumed (a specific entity not a force or mind) without going by any reference.

It also, I hope, would give a believers another avenue tonwhich they can talk about god. Im sure the existence of god does not depend on sacred text.

I got over my fustration with the bible, specifically, when I left the christian faith. I follow Sacred text. They dont lead ro god, though.

Why exclude sacred text?

That we may be ignorant of God's existence, says nothing about whether He exists or not.
We could, however, posit a great mind, when we observe the intricate information, and logistical system inside a cell.
But whether we call that mind God, or just, a great mind, or natural forces, makes no difference. Arguing whether or not God exists is just something we do as conditioned being.
By ''conditioned'' I mean using our own reasoning and logic, to draw conclusions, believing them to be sound. Our ambition should not be to just simply acquire facts, but to determine what the truth is. While facts may be true, they cannot tell us what is truth.

I can understand your frustration with sacred text.
When we first begin to read texts, with a view to understanding them, we do so from our own perspective, and experiences. This can be a blocker if we are not careful.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In the OP, I'm refering to entity as a spirit. It isn't something that can be measured. To many atheists, it doesn't exist or can't be known to exist. I'm basing it off the definitions that an entity or spirit can actually do and say things but have no body or anything to which we can confirm it (or he or she).

Going off of that, people need sacred text or nature or whatever means to use as reference and conclude there is an entity. Without those points of reference, how would people know an entity exist, that its a creator, and that it some how does and says things into existence.

As you're using it then, I think the history of "knowing" the attributes of any god figure would come down to what has actually happened throughout human history, in that we would just make it up.

I think it goes without saying that humans are predisposed to fantastical beliefs. Our history as shown us that, if nothing else. The truth of the matter is, the fantasy that we shroud the unknown in feels better than the real answer once we make something no longer mysterious. We prefer believing that toys are placed under our tree by a happy little man who carries trinkets made by elves in a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer. That's a better vision than seeing your mom and dad walk around in their PJ's, hair all messed up, at 3 in the morning after maxing out their credit cards, right? So any attributes that we would invent for this "entity" are completely of our own creation. The reference to holy books, in my opinion, is just a way to somewhat standardize the deity and give it a greater sense of authenticity. There's nothing about the nature of god that ancient man thought about that we can't similarly dream up.

 

[Thief]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

Entity would include.....thought and feeling.
Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Entity would include.....thought and feeling.
Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

Thought and feeling isnt a person, though. How do you get a person/entity by what you think and feel withiut using any points of reference?

 

[Thief]

The unfortunate fact is that we can't and don't know, and the mistake we often tend to make is to elevate beliefs to the level of absolute facts.

I think....
there is a natural tendency to confuse......
what we know
what we can prove
what we can be sure of
and what we are at liberty to assume.

 

[Thief]

Thought and feeling isnt a person, though. How do you get a person/entity by what you think and feel withiut using any points of reference?

without thought and feeling.....what 'kind' of 'person' would you be?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

without thought and feeling.....what 'kind' of 'person' would you be?

Entities dont have feelings and thoughts. Humans do.

Why or how would you associate your feelings and thoughts tp an entity?

 

[Thief]

Entities dont have feelings and thoughts. Humans do.

Why or how would you associate your feelings and thoughts tp an entity?

so I took a quick look....and most of the definition leans to a life form
life without thought or feeling?

we could say....that was God....just before He said....I AM!
we get to ask Him how He was able to do that, when we get there.

 

[idea]

IF god is an entity and there was No sacred text to imply this entity even exists, how do you know there is a god, how do you know this god is a creator and not anything else, and how did you come to that conclusion?

This is assuming god is an entity. Not a force, feeling, consciousness, or any description that, by nature, is not concrete.

Yes, God is a real entity - He is a physical being, not unlike ourselves (in the image of) with many accounts describing what his body looks like - "a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me hath..." the finger of God, the mouth of God, the feet of God - references to these are not abstract, they are really talking about God's hands/feet/face etc.

Chicken or the egg - which came first, the texts, or the people who had the experiences and wrote the texts? I know of God's reality first through the Spirit. I relate to what is written only after experiencing similar things myself. The Spirit is real. The first manifestation of the Spirit comes through your conscience - those nudges within you to do and choose good come from God. There are stronger manifestations than from your conscience though... although it starts with your conscience.