The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

Like I said he works within the realm of our logic,but is not bound by it. He does however reveal or make himself known through and to his creation In understanding the world around us we get a limited understanding , but an understanding non the less of his attributes. He is able to condescend to our level since we are not able to reach his. He makes himself known through his handi-work.

But, again because by your definition it is possible with our limited understanding to exist and not exist simultaneously, our early assumption has now become void. In essence, you suggest very much the same thing as Godnotgod. But let us move our assumption from our realm of logic to god's logic. That is to say in god's logic that we assume in god's logic, that god exists and only exists thus, he cannot be contradictory in this fashion. Now we also must assume that god creates a reality in which only our logic exists. If we were to give god the characteristic of being able to descend to our level or to work within our level of reality than the process of doing so would then bind him to our logic. If this were not so, then this reality would not be bound to our rules of logic either. If that is what you are suggesting, than indeed you and Godnotgod are saying exactly the same thing.

 

[godnotgod]

But, again because by your definition it is possible with our limited understanding to exist and not exist simultaneously, our early assumption has now become void. In essence, you suggest very much the same thing as Godnotgod. But let us move our assumption from our realm of logic to god's logic. That is to say in god's logic that we assume in god's logic, that god exists and only exists thus, he cannot be contradictory in this fashion. Now we also must assume that god creates a reality in which only our logic exists. If we were to give god the characteristic of being able to descend to our level or to work within our level of reality than the process of doing so would then bind him to our logic. If this were not so, then this reality would not be bound to our rules of logic either. If that is what you are suggesting, than indeed you and Godnotgod are saying exactly the same thing.

Man's logic consists of thinking about what reality is; God's logic consists of seeing reality as it is.

 

[Curious George]

Man's logic consists of thinking about what reality is; God's logic consists of seeing reality as it is.

Don't get me wrong, your beliefs do not contradict themselves. However, the only way to understand the gravity of your beliefs is to experience them through achieving a higher state of consciousness. Those trapped in a dual existence as you suggest cannot simply use logical thought to attain your said goal, so consequently there is no way for those trapped to verify your claim. That is not to suggest that your claim is not true. As I said earlier, your claim is consistent. But the underlying premise of your claim refutes logic. This leaves nothing for those trapped in the dual existence to verify or refute your claim.

 

[godnotgod]

Don't get me wrong, your beliefs do not contradict themselves. However, the only way to understand the gravity of your beliefs is to experience them through achieving a higher state of consciousness. Those trapped in a dual existence as you suggest cannot simply use logical thought to attain your said goal, so consequently there is no way for those trapped to verify your claim. That is not to suggest that your claim is not true. As I said earlier, your claim is consistent. But the underlying premise of your claim refutes logic. This leaves nothing for those trapped in the dual existence to verify or refute your claim.

Good observation. However, that which allows the seeing of reality as it is, is always present. The ordinary man sees illusion and thinks it to be reality. Sometimes, one suspects that something is amiss with the conventional view. What is causing that suspicion is the presence of our true nature, our universal mind. Hindus call this glimpse, this 'suspicion', sattva, or the revealing power:


WHAT IS MAYA?

"We've talked a little about equations; now we have to talk about maya [illusion]. What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling powe. Rajas has its projecting power, and sattva has its revealing power. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion."

The Equations of Maya
*****


"Rajas is viewed as being more positive than tamas, and less positive than sattva, except, perhaps, for one who has "transcended the gunas" and achieved equanimity in all fields of relative life. The rajas stage of life gives a slight clue to the realization of the Absolute Truth in the forms of fine sentiments in philosophy, art and culture with moral and ethical principles, but the mode of sattva [revealing power] is a still higher stage of material quality, which actually helps one in realizing the Absolute Truth."

Wikipedia
*****

So no one is completely engulfed in delusion. There is in everyone the potential for awakening one's true nature, although it is more accessible for some than for others, depending on various factors.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

But, again because by your definition it is possible with our limited understanding to exist and not exist simultaneously, our early assumption has now become void. In essence, you suggest very much the same thing as Godnotgod. But let us move our assumption from our realm of logic to god's logic. That is to say in god's logic that we assume in god's logic, that god exists and only exists thus, he cannot be contradictory in this fashion. Now we also must assume that god creates a reality in which only our logic exists. If we were to give god the characteristic of being able to descend to our level or to work within our level of reality than the process of doing so would then bind him to our logic. If this were not so, then this reality would not be bound to our rules of logic either. If that is what you are suggesting, than indeed you and Godnotgod are saying exactly the same thing.

The assumption you seem to have here is that we are on an equal playing field as God, but by default we are less than he is because we are created and he is not. We are finite and he is infinite. the finte logic can exist within the infinite, but not vise versa. He is not bound to us for his existence, but we are to him. We cannot access him through mental assent, but because he has given us logic(limited as it is)we can deduce that there is something greater than what is by looking at creation around us.We have been given enough logic, reason, etc. to acknowledge his existence if we wish to. On the other hand we could ignore what apparently is displayed.this is how I would see it. The lesser (us) serves the greater(God).

 

[Curious George]

Imagine it this way. If I were to create a computer program, I would not be bound by the parameters that I placed on such a program. If I were to interface with the program that interface would be bound by those parameters. Thus, to enter into the program to interact with the program I would have to bind myself to those parameters or those parameters would have to change. If this does not happen then my interface within the program is a contradiction of the program and therefore the program cannot be bound by the parameters. I am not saying god is not bound by any parameters- rather I assert that suggesting it is possible to interface with our reality and not be bound by the parameters of our reality, also suggests that those parameters on our reality are fictitious.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The God I worship is described in the Bible with a variety of qualities: He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.

God is spirit, not flesh, although he sometimes likens his attributes of sight, power, and such, to human faculties. He speaks figuratively of his “arm”, his “eyes,” and his “ears”, and he points out that, since he is the Creator of human eyes and ears, he certainly can see and hear.

Some of God’s primary attributes are love, wisdom, justice, and power. He is a God of order and of peace. He is completely holy, clean and pure; happy; and merciful. The God I know is slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness. There are many other qualities found in the scriptures.

Im sorry, but this was not directed at you.

It was directed at this fellow:

The problem here is that I do not believe in a specific God, god,Gods, gods or none of these.

A person attempting to be extremely verbose while actually not answering the question.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The assumption you seem to have here is that we are on an equal playing field as God, but by default we are less than he is because we are created and he is not. We are finite and he is infinite. the finte logic can exist within the infinite, but not vise versa. He is not bound to us for his existence, but we are to him. We cannot access him through mental assent, but because he has given us logic(limited as it is)we can deduce that there is something greater than what is by looking at creation around us.We have been given enough logic, reason, etc. to acknowledge his existence if we wish to. On the other hand we could ignore what apparently is displayed.this is how I would see it. The lesser (us) serves the greater(God).

There is no greater or lesser logic; there is only logic. This is an oft-repeated cop out.

An illogically-described God simply does not exist.

God cannot have square circles on his tie.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Imagine it this way. If I were to create a computer program, I would not be bound by the parameters that I placed on such a program. If I were to interface with the program that interface would be bound by those parameters. Thus, to enter into the program to interact with the program I would have to bind myself to those parameters or those parameters would have to change. If this does not happen then my interface within the program is a contradiction of the program and therefore the program cannot be bound by the parameters. I am not saying god is not bound by any parameters- rather I assert that suggesting it is possible to interface with our reality and not be bound by the parameters of our reality, also suggests that those parameters on our reality are fictitious.

Question? If you create the program then is not the program limited to that which you program it for?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

There is no greater or lesser logic; there is only logic. This is an oft-repeated cop out.

An illogically-described God simply does not exist.

God cannot have square circles on his tie.

Is not the illogical premised on the logical?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Is not the illogical premised on the logical?

How is man supposed to respect God if God does not follow his own rules?

Would you ever believe a politician who said 'Don't be gay,' and is then caught seeking homosexual sex in roadhouse bathrooms?

 

[Curious George]

Well, if you believe in a specific God are you or are you not, trying to presume that God would appear if the apple bag were opened? Was he not represented by the apple?

Im sorry, but this was not directed at you.

It was directed at this fellow:

A person attempting to be extremely verbose while actually not answering the question.

Well, I thought I was answering the question, but you are right I did not. And that is because your question had the qualifying statement "if you believe in a specific god." Since I do not, I simply thought I would verbosely profess superfluous beliefs irrelevant to the issue at hand. I apologize for the nature of my speech and my writing style in general. I cannot help but write the way I do. However, despite my redundant, wordy nature there was still no connection between my beliefs and my statement that I can clearly see.

 

[Curious George]

Question? If you create the program then is not the program limited to that which you program it for?

it is.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

How is man supposed to respect God if God does not follow his own rules?

Would you ever believe a politician who said 'Don't be gay,' and is then caught seeking homosexual sex in roadhouse bathrooms?

God does conform to his own rules. I believe you said he was not by stating that he lied. What I meant by my statement was that we cannot understand illogic unless we have some grasp of logic to begin with. The only liar as revealed in the bible is satan who is given the title of "the father of lies".
I would definatly agree with you if God did not conform to his rules, but why would he not? Who does he have to fear?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

it is.

then would it not be analagous to say that we are the computer and he is the programmer. I do know the analogy breaks down when it comes to choice, but the basic operating system has been downloaded.

 

[Curious George]

then would it not be analagous to say that we are the computer and he is the programmer. I do know the analogy breaks down when it come to choice, but the basic operating system has been downloaded.

but that is my point. In order to function within that system one must operate by those parameters that are set. To do otherwise would mean not that one was beyond the parameters; rather, to do otherwise would suggest that the parameters themselves were false.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

but that is my point. In order to function within that system one must operate by those parameters that are set. To do otherwise would mean not that one was beyond the parameters; rather, to do otherwise would suggest that the parameters themselves were false.

What if I upgrade or enter a virus? then would not the parameters change?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God does conform to his own rules. I believe you said he was not by stating that he lied. What I meant by my statement was that we cannot understand illogic unless we have some grasp of logic to begin with. The only liar as revealed in the bible is satan who is given the title of "the father of lies".
I would definatly agree with you if God did not conform to his rules, but why would he not? Who does he have to fear?

No, God is revealed as the liar right at the beginning, in the garden.

God does not conform to his own rules. He has no fear of punishment, and slaughters at his whim. He is never held accountable, not even by mouth from his followers, for the most part... many of his actions in the hands of a normal man would be villainous, to say the least.

I see now what you meant with the statement about logic. Danke.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, I thought I was answering the question, but you are right I did not.

That was the only issue; your writing style was not.

You simply used it in a sneaky manner

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No, God is revealed as the liar right at the beginning, in the garden.

God does not conform to his own rules. He has no fear of punishment, and slaughters at his whim. He is never held accountable, not even by mouth from his followers, for the most part... many of his actions in the hands of a normal man would be villainous, to say the least.

I see now what you meant with the statement about logic. Danke.

Tell me. If God had killed Adam and Eve physically at the beginning and not spiritually then would we be here today discussing the issue? Is he not displaying mercy so as to make him self known to all?