The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

Mm, no no. Describe him in total.

Every attribute. This is wholly insufficient.

Which would you like me to describe my beliefs or the specific God that I use in the statement either God exists or does not exist? What I listed before was one of my beliefs, however the God which I use in the God exists or God does not exist statement is a function. There is a difference. I took what you wrote to mean because I used a specific God in my "God exists or does not exist" statement, that you could infer my beliefs in a God, god, Gods, gods, or none of these. Thus, I shared a statement of my beliefs which I thought might contradict your notion. This statement that I made carries many other vast implications. My question to you is does that contradict your assumption of what I believe (If I understood your meaning correctly)?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Which would you like me to describe my beliefs or the specific God that I use in the statement either God exists or does not exist? What I listed before was one of my beliefs, however the God which I use in the God exists or God does not exist statement is a function. There is a difference. I took what you wrote to mean because I used a specific God in my "God exists or does not exist" statement, that you could infer my beliefs in a God, god, Gods, gods, or none of these. Thus, I shared a statement of my beliefs which I thought might contradict your notion. This statement that I made carries many other vast implications. My question to you is does that contradict your assumption of what I believe (If I understood your meaning correctly)?

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? What are you saying claiming he is a function?

What, exactly, is the 'difference' you're trying to insert?

 

[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? What are you saying claiming he is a function?

What, exactly, is the 'difference' you're trying to insert?

The problem here is that I do not believe in a specific God, god,Gods, gods or none of these. So I cannot say I believe an apple would appear or not. What I personally believe is that we can make a logical statement creating a dichotomy as long as that dichotomy is mutually exclusive and exhaustive. On a personal note, I believe that we can take a specific concept of any deity and based on that concept decide if that concept is logical. Now just because that concept is logical still does not prove the deity is real. Rather it proves that the statement is logically consistent. I would suggest that most logically consistent definitions of God, gods, Gods, and god are so abstract that they really offer us no significant insight or knowledge. Moreover, these concepts are far removed from what most followers imagine as their deity or deities. In short, I believe most people to have illogical concepts on which they create a foundation of belief. So, the difference that I am trying to insert is a pretty large difference. The vast chasm between the definition of God I used in the statement, "God exists or God does not exist," and that which I believe is so great that I find it amazing that anyone could extrapolate or discern my beliefs from such a statement. Now by function I mean exactly that; a variable if you will. However, I use the term function because most concepts of God are really interaction between one or more variables. i.e. they are not as abstract. But in retrospect variable would be more accurate of a description, since I can set any function to equal any variable and vice versa.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

The problem here is that I do not believe in a specific God, god,Gods, gods or none of these. So I cannot say I believe an apple would appear or not. What I personally believe is that we can make a logical statement creating a dichotomy as long as that dichotomy is mutually exclusive and exhaustive. On a personal note, I believe that we can take a specific concept of any deity and based on that concept decide if that concept is logical. Now just because that concept is logical still does not prove the deity is real. Rather it proves that the statement is logically consistent. I would suggest that most logically consistent definitions of God, gods, Gods, and god are so abstract that they really offer us no significant insight or knowledge. Moreover, these concepts are far removed from what most followers imagine as their deity or deities. In short, I believe most people to have illogical concepts on which they create a foundation of belief. So, the difference that I am trying to insert is a pretty large difference. The vast chasm between the definition of God I used in the statement, "God exists or God does not exist," and that which I believe is so great that I find it amazing that anyone could extrapolate or discern my beliefs from such a statement. Now by function I mean exactly that; a variable if you will. However, I use the term function because most concepts of God are really interaction between one or more variables. i.e. they are not as abstract. But in retrospect variable would be more accurate of a description, since I can set any function to equal any variable and vice versa.

Just for sake of discussion. If there were such thing as a "god" what would be the qualifications for said "god"? In other words, what would distinguish it as such? Are there certain attributes or characteristics that set it apart from creation?

 

[Curious George]

Just for sake of discussion. If there were such thing as a "god" what would be the qualifications for said "god"? In other words, what would distinguish it as such? Are there certain attributes or characteristics that set it apart from creation?

I will gladly assume there is a "god" for the sake of discussion. I suppose we would have to determine the characteristics. So let us proceed, is this god bound by logic?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I will gladly assume there is a "god" for the sake of discussion. I suppose we would have to determine the characteristics. So let us proceed, is this god bound by logic?

If you procede here then you would have to ask if he/she is bound by our form of logic ?

 

[Curious George]

If you procede here then you would have to ask if he/she is bound by our form of logic ?

I can agree to that. But what is the answer?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I can agree to that. But what is the answer?

I would say yes, but since his logic would transcend(seeing that for sake of assumption) ours we would not perceive it necessarily as logic.

 

[Curious George]

I would say yes, but since his logic would transcend(seeing that for sake of assumption) ours we would not perceive it necessarily as logic.

If he is bound by our form of logic then his logic would not transcend ours, for he is bound to our logic. If god is bound by "his" logic which transcends ours then he is not necessarily bound by our logic.

 

[Curious George]

So, is this god bound by our logic?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

If he is bound by our form of logic then his logic would not transcend ours, for he is bound to our logic. If god is bound by "his" logic which transcends ours then he is not necessarily bound by our logic.

Our logic is bound or encompassed by his logic , but not vise versa.

 

[Curious George]

Our logic is bound or encompassed by his logic , but not vise versa.

Which is exactly what I just said. Thus, I will ask again is god bound by our logic?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Which is exactly what I just said. Thus, I will ask again is god bound by our logic?

Not sure if you understood what I am saying. Our logic is contained within his and he can and does work within our framework for our sakes, but his logic also transcends that which we can perceive without his intevention.

 

[Curious George]

Then he is not bound by our logic he is bound by his logic. We however are bound by our logic which is contained within his logic. correct?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Then he is not bound by our logic he is bound by his logic. We however are bound by our logic which is contained within his logic. correct?

Yes,exactly.

 

[starlite]

Mm, no no. Describe him in total.

Every attribute. This is wholly insufficient.

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.

 

[Curious George]

Here is the problem with the scenario that we just developed. According to your model we can never know anything about god. For god exists outside of our reason. any interaction with god however becomes suspect. For instance, if god tells us to be eat split pee soup on Friday's it is impossible for us to conclude he meant split pee soup, to eat or Friday. In fact, all of a sudden our original assumption also comes into question. For if god is not bound by our logic it is possible for his existence to contradict itself within our logic. We have now suggested a scenario where it is possible for god to exist and not exist.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Here is the problem with the scenario that we just developed. According to your model we can never know anything about god. For god exists outside of our reason. any interaction with god however becomes suspect. For instance, if god tells us to be eat split pee soup on Friday's it is impossible for us to conclude he meant split pee soup, to eat or Friday. In fact, all of a sudden our original assumption also comes into question. For if god is not bound by our logic it is possible for his existence to contradict itself within our logic. We have now suggested a scenario where it is possible for god to exist and not exist.

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.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

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.

I agree, but what makes him holy distinct ? Food for thought. What makes him God as apposed to other gods?

 

[godnotgod]

What is true of the world that is not available from facts about the world?

It's illusory nature, and that it is not made up of separate 'things'.

Thank you for that. However, this is a forum where I expect you to present your ideas in your own words. I don’t accept reading lists and nor do I open links. I’m only interested in what you have to say, since it is impossible to have a discussion with the third party. But on the one hand I’m very surprised that you think I might be swung to believe in mystical claims by a piece of writing, while on the other hand it seems to confirm what is already generally suspected, which is that some people are disposed and suggestible to mystical beliefs and faith systems. But why if you are so sure of what you believe is it necessary to post a plethora of links and reams of copy and paste? It’s no different to theists quoting the Bible chapter and verse.

I think you are quite ignorant in your refusal to go see for yourself. You persist on clinging to your rational, analytical viewpoint which creates a barrier against your being able to see something different than what your conditioned view tells you. I point to the moon, and you rabidly attack my pointing finger instead. How is that different than the ignorant minds enslaved in Plato's Cave? Everything I have pointed to is seen through your intellectual filters. You have yet to see things as they are, as you don't even think that is possible. Once again, you persist, in spite of what I have told you, that what I am presenting is a religious belief. I pointed you toward the reference work especially because it is mainly an intellectual approach which I thought you would appreciate. But it seems you are just too busy with yours sceptical mind to even have a look. When I point to something outside my own words, it is because I see the validity of the other reference in a way which can be expressed better than I can do. This is not a classroom where you are the instructor and mandate that your students do it your way. But then again, Zen is compared to a bubbling mountain spring. As a passerby, you may stop and partake of its refreshing waters, or simply move on. No matter. The spring simply continues to bubble forth. If Zen were the belief system you claim it to be, it would insist you drink of its waters, that you MUST believe, and in some cases, believe, or else. So I suggest it is time for you to move on with your intellectual baggage to the next town. You have nothing on this party.

Well if my scepticism is a faith then it is one that is amenable to being overturned. Anything, and I do mean anything, is possible if it is not self-contradictory. My method is to look for any small kernel of truth in what is claimed*, upon which an argument can be mounted, and there are occasions when I can agree with theists on certain points of logic, but every step in your argument has lead to a direct contradiction and a full stop. So forgive me for saying this but the claim to ‘see things as they are’ is an empty one, and it is a conclusion that has been obvious from the very beginning of this protracted debate. We’ve had lots of references to the believed-in doctrine and its internal jargon, telling us why we cannot see what it is you claim to see while carefully avoiding the subject of the seen thing itself. The scepticism is wholly justified.

Maybe you can join up with the religious fundies in the next town who make the same, smug rationalization for their 'faith'. What you both fail to realize is that they need you as you need them; you are two poles of the same experience. When the intellect and the heart are merged, we get:

"Be thou wise as serpents and harmless as doves"

resulting in a transformation of both centers of consciousness into an entirely new view, in which there is no object of seeing, which you continue to insist that I produce evidence of. There is no object of seeing, nor is there a see-er of any object, as all dualities are merged into one.

Your scepticism is a function of the existence of the religious man's doctrine, but the mystic's view is not doctrine. It is seeing, without doctrine, but you still attempt to apply your scepticism to this non-doctrine. Reality itself is doctrineless, and the seeing of it involves no doctrine or belief in such doctrine. To see it as such is to see it as it is not. Without it is to see it as it is. It is that simple, but you are creating all sorts of complications and tortuous arguments, all designed NOT to see.

When seeing, just see. Nothing more. Nothing less. Neither faith, nor not-faith; neither doctrine nor not-doctrine; neither for nor against; neither god, nor not-god.

Ordinary reality can be 'explained' via Logic and Reason, but Ultimate Reality cannot, since Logic and Reason are conceptual systems of thought designed to encapsulate reality, which Ultimate Reality is not susceptible to.

Paradox

God** is not the root of contradiction, but God** is the simplicity itself prior to every root.
Nicholas of Cusa

In the Way of search for God** everything is upside down.
Rumi

God** is not seen except by blindness, nor known except by ignorance, nor understood except by fools.
Meister Eckhart
*****

*...and therein lies your problem; you set your first foot forward employing the baggage of your so-called 'method', which determines the results of your investigation. Instead of making certain your vision is first without flaw so that you can see correctly, you go forth with preconceived notions already flaring. This is the same problem the believer has. Neither of you are aware of it, nor will you admit to it. All you can do is erect more barriers to seeing things as they actually are, and that has to do with vision correction.

The true scholar is dispassionate; he does not approach reality with any preconceived notions, or 'method', in mind. He does not 'look for...truth', or non-truth, because to do so is already having the mind immersed in the dual world, and in some 'idea' of truth.

**Ultimate Reality; The Absolute