define god...

[Riverwolf]

I am curious. How did you reach the conclusion that "i" doesn't change over time?

It's more a belief based on Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

The theory is that if you strip every aspect of yourself, you'll find a single core, and that core is Brahman.

I haven't actually experienced that yet, but it does make sense.

The other possibility is the one put forth by the Buddha: there is no core to be found. This also makes sense.

As I haven't dug that deeply (I don't have a Guru who can show me how), I don't know for sure which is true.

 

[outhouse]

No, this is merely the definition of a narrow mind.

thats only your opinion.

my opinion is based on a study of history and how ancient gods were all created by man.

I would be supprised to hear your thoughts on how the abrahamic god was created.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"Exalted art Thou above the description of any one save Thyself, and the comprehension of aught else except Thee.
I testify that Thou hast been sanctified above all attributes and holy above all names. "

Baha'u'llah - Selected From Baha'i Long Obligatory Prayer

 

[waitasec]

God with form, which is based on human understanding and bias, and God without form, which is the only Constant.

based on human understanding...

How is that related to what I said?

you said:

It is truly great when someone is able to break free of that conformity.

who breaks free from conformity? a leader.

From a philosophical standpoint, I wouldn't call that wholly "original," but a continued evolution of a genre that already existed, and helped influence the emergence of Hard Rock and Metal (and One-Winged Angel )

without whom a branch of music would not have emerged

the former of which is still just a subgenre of rock 'n roll, and the latter has an unclear "origin." (I believe it's debated as to which musician and/or band actually was the official start of metal.)

all of which did not conform to their influences

Sure, if you call that original, then yes it is. But it's not how I define "originality."

consider a tree... each branch is connected to the trunk but is original in form

But then "I" didn't exist a few years ago, and won't exist next year. Therefore, that "I" becomes just a small piece of a puzzle: no more or less important than any other piece.

and the "i" of today cannot be without the "i"of yesterday
when "i" learn "i" changes
therefore giving yesterdays "i" value...

I was refuting your absolute statement that originality cannot be inferior by giving an example of an originality that is certainly inferior to conformity.

evil acts are not a form of inferiority...they're just viewed as unfavorable to society as a whole...

But breaking out of conformity in a peaceful way is better than blind conformity.

absolutely

But there's nothing wrong with informed conformity to a certain extent to certain subcultures based on shared interest.

i am understanding that as; the laws society upholds but are ultimately subjected to progress and change

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I offer this Quote:

"From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence. Every attempt to attain to an understanding of His inaccessible Reality hath ended in complete bewilderment, and every

effort to approach His exalted Self and envisage His Essence hath resulted in hopelessness and failure.​

How bewildering to me, insignificant as I am, is the attempt to fathom the sacred depths of Thy knowledge! How futile my efforts to visualize the magnitude of the power inherent in Thine handiwork—the revelation of Thy creative power! How can mine eye, which hath no faculty to perceive itself, claim to have discerned Thine Essence, and how can mine heart, already powerless to apprehend the significance of its own potentialities, pretend to have comprehended Thy nature? How can I claim to have known Thee, when the entire creation is bewildered by Thy mystery, and how can I confess not to have known Thee, when, lo, the whole universe proclaimeth Thy Presence and testifieth to Thy truth? The portals of Thy grace have throughout eternity been open, and the means of access unto Thy Presence made available, unto all created things, and the revelations of Thy matchless Beauty have at all times been imprinted upon the realities of all beings, visible and invisible. Yet, notwithstanding this most gracious favor, this perfect and consummate bestowal, I am moved to testify that Thy court of holiness and glory is immeasurably exalted above the knowledge of all else besides Thee, and the mystery of Thy Presence is inscrutable to every mind except Thine own. No one except Thyself can unravel the secret of Thy nature, and naught else but Thy transcendental Essence can grasp the reality of Thy unsearchable being. How vast the number of those heavenly and all-glorious beings who, in the wilderness of their separation from Thee, have wandered all the days of their lives, and failed in the end to find Thee! How great the multitude of the sanctified and immortal souls who were lost and bewildered while seeking in the desert of search to behold Thy face! Myriad are Thine ardent lovers whom the consuming flame of remoteness from Thee hath caused to sink and perish, and numberless are the faithful souls who have willingly laid down their lives in the hope of gazing on the light of Thy countenance. The sighs and moans of these longing hearts that pant after Thee can never reach Thy holy court, neither can the lamentations of the wayfarers that thirst to appear before Thy face attain Thy seat of glory. "

- Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah

 

[Riverwolf]

based on human understanding...

I'll rephrase, because I get the sense that I didn't give an accurate description of Saguna vs. Nirguna Brahman. (Saguna = Personal God/God with Form; Nirguna = Impersonal God/God without Form).

Saguna Brahman is when our biases, beliefs, ideals, etc. are applied to the Supreme, and this gives rise to the various God-concepts that we have.

Nirguna Brahman is free from all of that. The idea that Nirguna Brahman is the only Constant is based on the hypothesis that if you strip away all things that are transitory, you will eventually reach one thing that all things contain, are made of, are related through, etc.

For example, how are you and I the same? We're both humans. How are humans and chimps related? We're both primates. How are primates and, say, cetaceans related? They're both mammals. How are mammals and birds related? They both are animals. How are animals and plants related? They're both alive. How are living things and nonliving things related? They're both made of certain molecular elements. These contain atoms, which have their own components. These components have components of their own.

I don't know if there are things that aren't made of atoms (besides the actual subatomic components.) The theory is that eventually you'd reach a place where you can't go any further, and whatever you reach at that point is the Constant.

you said:

who breaks free from conformity? a leader.

Not necessarily. I didn't conform to society, but I'm way too timid to be a leader.

I broke free from society because society rejected me. Thus, I learned how to think on my own, so that even though I belong to certain subcultures, I don't "conform" to all the likes/dislikes of them.

without whom a branch of music would not have emerged

all of which did not conform to their influences

I could argue both points 'till I'm blue in the mouth, but I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent.

consider a tree... each branch is connected to the trunk but is original in form

But are still the tree, and thus aren't wholly "original." Besides, that's not how I'd apply "original." If I were to apply the word "original" to the tree, I'd think of a branch that grows in a perfectly straight line and grows leaves that don't exist anywhere else in nature.

BTW, I love the irony here, because the tree is often used as an analogy to describe dvaitadvaita, the idea that the soul is both the same and different from God. ^_^

and the "i" of today cannot be without the "i"of yesterday
when "i" learn "i" changes
therefore giving yesterdays "i" value...

But not extra-ordinary value. All the pieces of the puzzle are equal in value.

evil acts are not a form of inferiority...

But we tend to look down on those who commit evil, do we not?

i am understanding that as; the laws society upholds but are ultimately subjected to progress and change

...once again, what does that have to do with what I said? I'm referring primarily to cultures and subcultures.

 

[Quagmire]

thats only your opinion.

my opinion is based on a study of history and how ancient gods were all created by man.

I would be supprised to hear your thoughts on how the abrahamic god was created.

I would be amazed to see you post something on topic. :yes:

The OP is asking for your definition of God. Not a twisted version of someone else's.

 

[waitasec]

I'll rephrase, because I get the sense that I didn't give an accurate description of Saguna vs. Nirguna Brahman. (Saguna = Personal God/God with Form; Nirguna = Impersonal God/God without Form).

Saguna Brahman is when our biases, beliefs, ideals, etc. are applied to the Supreme, and this gives rise to the various God-concepts that we have.

Nirguna Brahman is free from all of that. The idea that Nirguna Brahman is the only Constant is based on the hypothesis that if you strip away all things that are transitory, you will eventually reach one thing that all things contain, are made of, are related through, etc.

For example, how are you and I the same? We're both humans. How are humans and chimps related? We're both primates. How are primates and, say, cetaceans related? They're both mammals. How are mammals and birds related? They both are animals. How are animals and plants related? They're both alive. How are living things and nonliving things related? They're both made of certain molecular elements. These contain atoms, which have their own components. These components have components of their own.

I don't know if there are things that aren't made of atoms (besides the actual subatomic components.) The theory is that eventually you'd reach a place where you can't go any further, and whatever you reach at that point is the Constant.

i think we are saying the same things but we're expressing it differently..
from what i gather, the energy of life is god...is that right?
when i said, god is actively apathetic towards emotions, sentiments, and desires of other sentient beings, i believe gets to the heart of the matter just as when you said

strip away all things that are transitory

is the energy of life, the constant, concerned with these things? no.

Not necessarily. I didn't conform to society, but I'm way too timid to be a leader.

I broke free from society because society rejected me. Thus, I learned how to think on my own, so that even though I belong to certain subcultures, I don't "conform" to all the likes/dislikes of them.

did you break free or were you disconnected?
a timid person does not break free...
timid people are too afraid to follow the beat of their own drum
most people who have no choice but to think for themselves are their own leader. some follow some don't. the important thing is you lead yourself.

I could argue both points 'till I'm blue in the mouth, but I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent.

:rainbow1:

But are still the tree, and thus aren't wholly "original."

the constant...

Besides, that's not how I'd apply "original." If I were to apply the word "original" to the tree, I'd think of a branch that grows in a perfectly straight line and grows leaves that don't exist anywhere else in nature.

then the constant wouldn't apply...
we share the same atoms...it is our personality that branches off giving life distinguished personal characteristics (collectively). most conform, some branch off

BTW, I love the irony here, because the tree is often used as an analogy to describe dvaitadvaita, the idea that the soul is both the same and different from God. ^_^

But not extra-ordinary value. All the pieces of the puzzle are equal in value.

not necessarily... people stagnate. if their "i" of today is the same as the"i" of yesterday...no value was added.
i think one of the most valuable lessons to learn is to know our limitations and weaknesses. children are very keen at this...they do not hesitate when they ask because they know their limitations...

But we tend to look down on those who commit evil, do we not?

we ultimately look down at ourselves...no one is innocent.
we do not favor ourselves when we knowingly deny our truths.

...once again, what does that have to do with what I said? I'm referring primarily to cultures and subcultures.

i was equating laws cultures apply as "informed conformity" .

 

[asketikos]

for me God is love, that's the best definition i can come up with.

 

[Riverwolf]

i think we are saying the same things but we're expressing it differently..
from what i gather, the energy of life is god...is that right?
when i said, god is actively apathetic towards emotions, sentiments, and desires of other sentient beings, i believe gets to the heart of the matter just as when you said

is the energy of life, the constant, concerned with these things? no.

I wasn't disputing that part of your definition.

did you break free or were you disconnected?
a timid person does not break free...
timid people are too afraid to follow the beat of their own drum
most people who have no choice but to think for themselves are their own leader. some follow some don't. the important thing is you lead yourself.

I think this view is a bit too narrow to be accurate. I'm a timid person, but I did reject society. It wasn't hard at all.

the constant...

then the constant wouldn't apply...
we share the same atoms...it is our personality that branches off giving life distinguished personal characteristics (collectively). most conform, some branch off

I think we have different degrees as to how far originality extends.

Not to mention, the branches are still less than the tree, which was the Source; the Original originality, and thus God (Nirguna Brahman) is not lacking in this sense as you said.

not necessarily... people stagnate. if their "i" of today is the same as the"i" of yesterday...no value was added.

Not possible, seeing as everything is in a constant state of change.

i think one of the most valuable lessons to learn is to know our limitations and weaknesses. children are very keen at this...they do not hesitate when they ask because they know their limitations...

I agree, but what does that have to do with the topic?

we ultimately look down at ourselves...no one is innocent.
we do not favor ourselves when we knowingly deny our truths.

How is that contradictory to what I said?

i was equating laws cultures apply as "informed conformity" .

... I don't think that's a sentence.

 

[waitasec]

Not possible, seeing as everything is in a constant state of change.

I agree, but what does that have to do with the topic?

How is that contradictory to what I said?

some people don't learn because they think they know...
who said i was trying to be contradictory...

... I don't think that's a sentence.

i'll modiify...
"i was equating the laws cultures apply to your "informed conformity" .

does that make sense?

 

[Oneatatime]

God cannot be meaningfully defined

 

[Twig pentagram]

I think reality is god. The whole and the individual parts that complete it.

 

[Breathe]

siva is a demon, not a god. Beware!

I doubt that.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

There so many definitions of god I could lose count. For some hard core fundamentalists it would be that old man in the sky donning a long white robe and a long flowing beard. For others the definition may be broadened to no specific physical appearance but still a personal god or some imaginary friend of human form which listens to their prayers and works miracles. Other more liberal theologians it may be of no human form at all and rather more akin to Xenophanes's God and it still retains the status of a sentient super-being and an intelligent force nonetheless. And finally for for the scientific pantheist it is just a personification of the nature and its laws and is not an intelligent sentient super-being at all.

BTW I have just noticed this is post 666 which springs to mind another darker being - the beast or Satan, which could be argued just as much an ambiguous a concept as God.

 

[trajan]

sky daddy = mans imagination for what he does not know and his imagination to calm his fears and his imagination for what he wants.

sky daddy is imagination, that is why you only believe in your sky daddy based on the geographic location you were born.

despite that ..can u prove that god does not exist?

 

[trajan]

God cannot be meaningfully defined

maybe but..god can be shown to exist by looking @ the effects of that force that set everything in motion 15 billion years ago..the sun..moon ..stsrs ..that force must be god

 

[trajan]

for me God is love, that's the best definition i can come up with.

but he is also hate..darkness the unseen..he presents himself bothways

 

[outhouse]

can u prove that god does not exist?

can you prove santa claus does not exist or the easter bunny?????

 

[waitasec]

maybe but..god can be shown to exist by looking @ the effects of that force that set everything in motion 15 billion years ago..the sun..moon ..stsrs ..that force must be god

however, by labeling this force "god" is giving the unknown attributes no one has observed...