God is known to God

[sridatta]

1. God is known to God

(God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled. For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle).
Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only.

This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.

(The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature).
To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

 

[McBell]

Nice circular argument you got there.

 

[tumbleweed41]

5. God Is Known To God - ULC Online Forum
God is known to God : dattaswami blogs on sulekha, Other blogs, dattaswami blog from india
God is known to God - BrainMeta.com Forum

Exact same post in other forums and a blog.

 

[sridatta]

Nice circular argument you got there.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]God is known as unknown


(God is known as unknown. This is said in Veda and in Gita also)
Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions. That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…). Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.). Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.

 

[McBell]

5. God Is Known To God - ULC Online Forum
God is known to God : dattaswami blogs on sulekha, Other blogs, dattaswami blog from india
God is known to God - BrainMeta.com Forum

Exact same post in other forums and a blog.

He is either spamming forums or he is plagiarizing.

Both are against this forums rules

 

[sridatta]

He is either spamming forums or he is plagiarizing.

Both are against this forums rules

This is my own work. I is my orginal writing , you must read the response and discuss on it. You are welcome

 

[McBell]

This is my own work. I is my orginal writing , you must read the response and discuss on it. You are welcome

So you are merely spamming forums.

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[freethinker44]

Just because you can't logically explain why something is the way it is, and you can't explain why all the evidence is against it, doesn't mean it is unknowable, it probably just means you are wrong.

 

[sridatta]

Just because you can't logically explain why something is the way it is, and you can't explain why all the evidence is against it, doesn't mean it is unknowable, it probably just means you are wrong.

In such case, you cannot use the word “Unimaginable” at all! Then, why that word is created? What is the meaning of that word? If you choose that way, silence only indicates God and some have followed this way also. Suppose you say, “I cannot utter that”. Does this mean that you have uttered that? Therefore, it is one and the same to indicate God through silence or through the word unimaginable. If a word is not assigned, mention of God becomes impossible in the spiritual knowledge. Veda uses the word “Unimaginable” for God (Atarkyah…Aprameyah…).

 

[YmirGF]

1. God is known to God

(God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled. For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle).
Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva&#8230. Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only.

But... how would you know this. It is unimaginable, remember. This is mere speculation and not very clever speculation at that.

This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.

I never did have much use for miracles. They are so... old school.
Again... how would you know? It is unimaginable.

(The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature).

It might be simpler to use the word "symbolic" or "token" here to get this across. The premise is still a bit daft, imo.

To recognize day, night should relatively exist.

Oh good grief.

Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist.

I think you are making the mistake of trying to express something you do not understand.

If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature.

By default, that would be somewhat fanciful. Do you find this a compelling idea?

Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

Frankly, I don't think you have the foggiest idea about what you are talking about.

I don't need to imagine a tree or deer exists. I know they exist. Their actuality does not support the idea of any unimaginable creator.

Back to the drawing board, my friend.

 

[Wandered Off]

I don't need to imagine a tree or deer exists.

So obviously unimaginable non-trees must also exist.

 

[YmirGF]

So obviously unimaginable non-trees must also exist.

Apparently.

 

[freethinker44]

In such case, you cannot use the word “Unimaginable” at all! Then, why that word is created? What is the meaning of that word? If you choose that way, silence only indicates God and some have followed this way also. Suppose you say, “I cannot utter that”. Does this mean that you have uttered that? Therefore, it is one and the same to indicate God through silence or through the word unimaginable. If a word is not assigned, mention of God becomes impossible in the spiritual knowledge. Veda uses the word “Unimaginable” for God (Atarkyah…Aprameyah…).

I don't believe anything can be unimaginable, obviously god isn't unimaginable since at some point the idea of god entered our imagination and this applies to anything else, even if something doesn't exist until you think it into existence doesn't mean that it is unimaginable since it can be imagined as proof that it has been imagined.

If god was known only to god then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now and everyone would be atheist.

 

[sridatta]

But... how would you know this. It is unimaginable, remember. This is mere speculation and not very clever speculation at that.

I never did have much use for miracles. They are so... old school.
Again... how would you know? It is unimaginable.

It might be simpler to use the word "symbolic" or "token" here to get this across. The premise is still a bit daft, imo.

Oh good grief.

I think you are making the mistake of trying to express something you do not understand.

By default, that would be somewhat fanciful. Do you find this a compelling idea?

Frankly, I don't think you have the foggiest idea about what you are talking about.

I don't need to imagine a tree or deer exists. I know they exist. Their actuality does not support the idea of any unimaginable creator.

Back to the drawing board, my friend.

God is always unimaginable and unknowable for any human being and under any circumstances because He is beyond the dimensions of space and time. This is very much stressed in the Veda and the Gita. There is no second thought about this point and Shankara also said the same when He said that God could be understood only in deep sleep. In deep sleep (Sushupti) there is no entity that understands (Jnata) because the process of understanding (Jnanam) disappears. When the process of burning disappears, there is no fire. If you say that the process of knowing itself is the knower, then also the knower is absent because there is no process of knowing in deep sleep. The knower can no more be a knower if the knower loses the process or quality of knowing. Then the knower is converted into an inert item in deep sleep. Infact, this is true according to science also because the knower or process of knowing is converted into inert energy in deep sleep. Shankara means by His statement that God is unknown as indicated by deep sleep, in which a state of total ignorance remains, indicating that one is totally ignorant about God (Sushuptyekasiddhah…). You cannot say that the knower or the process of knowing (knowledge) itself is God, because in that case, God is not eternal but vanishes daily (converted into inert energy) and is born daily (inert energy is converted into the knower or knowledge). This is not acceptable because God is eternal.

To evaluate the unknown answer [in Mathematics], you represent the answer by X and then get the answer for X using the given data. But in the case of God, the answer will always be unknowable and unimaginable. The link between the unknowable God and the knowable items of the world is also unknowable and hence no data related to God can be knowable. In the Mathematical problem, since the answer is knowable, the data related to the knowable answer is also knowable with the help of which the knowable [unknown] answer can be evaluated. But that is not the case with God. Hence, any knowable item of the creation can be made as the representative of God. The only knowable experience about God is that God exists.

 

[freethinker44]

God is always unimaginable and unknowable for any human being and under any circumstances because He is beyond the dimensions of space and time. This is very much stressed in the Veda and the Gita. There is no second thought about this point and Shankara also said the same when He said that God could be understood only in deep sleep. In deep sleep (Sushupti) there is no entity that understands (Jnata) because the process of understanding (Jnanam) disappears. When the process of burning disappears, there is no fire. If you say that the process of knowing itself is the knower, then also the knower is absent because there is no process of knowing in deep sleep. The knower can no more be a knower if the knower loses the process or quality of knowing. Then the knower is converted into an inert item in deep sleep. Infact, this is true according to science also because the knower or process of knowing is converted into inert energy in deep sleep. Shankara means by His statement that God is unknown as indicated by deep sleep, in which a state of total ignorance remains, indicating that one is totally ignorant about God (Sushuptyekasiddhah…). You cannot say that the knower or the process of knowing (knowledge) itself is God, because in that case, God is not eternal but vanishes daily (converted into inert energy) and is born daily (inert energy is converted into the knower or knowledge). This is not acceptable because God is eternal.

To evaluate the unknown answer [in Mathematics], you represent the answer by X and then get the answer for X using the given data. But in the case of God, the answer will always be unknowable and unimaginable. The link between the unknowable God and the knowable items of the world is also unknowable and hence no data related to God can be knowable. In the Mathematical problem, since the answer is knowable, the data related to the knowable answer is also knowable with the help of which the knowable [unknown] answer can be evaluated. But that is not the case with God. Hence, any knowable item of the creation can be made as the representative of God. The only knowable experience about God is that God exists.

All you said is based on an assumption that you want to be true. You want it to be true and you are making logical conclusions thats apply to everything but god gets a get out of jail free card and basic logic doesn't need to apply to him. And then on top of this big pyramid of claims you make you place god at the top and say no one can prove that wrong because it is above our humble minds.

So basically, you have nothing but desperately need to cling to your beliefs because you are afraid of learning anything new, right?

 

[sridatta]

All you said is based on an assumption that you want to be true. You want it to be true and you are making logical conclusions thats apply to everything but god gets a get out of jail free card and basic logic doesn't need to apply to him. And then on top of this big pyramid of claims you make you place god at the top and say no one can prove that wrong because it is above our humble minds.

So basically, you have nothing but desperately need to cling to your beliefs because you are afraid of learning anything new, right?

God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space, since God is the cause and space is the first effect. Mud is the cause and pot is the effect. Unless you destroy the pot, its cause, the lump of mud cannot be visualized. Unless space is dissolved God cannot be seen. You may try for millions of years to imagine the situation after dissolution of space. It is absolutely impossible to go beyond space.
You can imagine anything with some minute spatial dimensions only, which may be very very small. Your intelligence is limited by spatial dimensions. It cannot cross the three co-ordinates, which are length, width and height called as spatial dimensions. This means, God is absolutely unimaginable to the intelligence and analysis (Yo Buddheh Paratah…). The analysis to know that God is beyond analysis is also analysis only.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I don't usually like wading into arguments which amount to little more than semantics, but this one has at its core a potentially revealing argument.

The whole argument hinges upon the presumption that "God" knowing itself satisfies the condition of "able to be imagined." What if "God" knows everything a-priori (that is to say that all knowledge is possessed independent/prior to experience)? In that case "God" still cannot "imagine itself."

More-over arguments on faculties of absolutes and infinities inevitably devolve at some point beyond usability as our own limitations are expressed in our inability to truthfully conceive and thus formulate arguments about such things.

MTF

 

[Atheologian]

Oh boy, what an easy argument to crush

If the prerequisite for God is for God to know that he exists, he would have to exist in order to know that he exists. Basically, you are only assuming that he exists, in order to say that he knows that he exists. If I were to assume that he did NOT exist, than he could not POSSIBLY know of his own existence, or lack thereof, therefore the prerequisite has not been met.

 

[Morse]

Oh boy, what an easy argument to crush

If the prerequisite for God is for God to know that he exists, he would have to exist in order to know that he exists. Basically, you are only assuming that he exists, in order to say that he knows that he exists. If I were to assume that he did NOT exist, than he could not POSSIBLY know of his own existence, or lack thereof, therefore the prerequisite has not been met.

I was really hoping nobody would have said this by the time I had read the entire thread....

But Kudos to you, that made me chuckle (Despite your incredibly annoying signature).

Do I smell Frubals in the air?

 

[Atheologian]

I was really hoping nobody would have said this by the time I had read the entire thread....

But Kudos to you, that made me chuckle (Despite your incredibly annoying signature).

Do I smell Frubals in the air?

Don't worry, It's the biblical GOD, not the universal one...
I thought it was a little annoying myself, just because it's moving. Maybe I'll change it...