What is Faith?

[jarofthoughts]

And if God is not attributable, such that there is nowhere God is not and nothing God is not, and similarly nowhere God is and nothing God is (the assignment of locality and substance being attribute), where does that leave your arguments?

We have a different term for what essentially amounts to everything. We call it "Universe".

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Clearly, physical/empirical phenomena since they're observable, testable, and predictable (such as computer simulations have done).

They have physical influences (so do ghosts), they exert gravity upon galaxies, they are possibly gravitons from other D brane universes interacting with ours....a point I was trying to make to the poster.

Also in an earlier post you suggested that Hawking said nothing is real (in a post to jarofthoughts) -- what did you mean by that?

[FONT=verdana,geneva] ''I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.'' [/FONT]

Stephen Hawking - The Origin of the Universe

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Place-holders until we can figure out what they really are. :yes:

Pfft...

 

[Meow Mix]

They have physical influences (so do ghosts), they exert gravity upon galaxies, they are possibly gravitons from other D brane universes interacting with ours....a point I was trying to make to the poster.

Excuse me... ghosts? What?

Dark matter and dark energy are empirical phenomena. As a cosmology grad student I have at least a little privilege in stating that they're not anything mystical.

[FONT=verdana,geneva]

''I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.''

[/FONT]

Stephen Hawking - The Origin of the Universe

This isn't original to Hawking, it's actually a consequence of the Bell Inequality in that with the current understanding of quantum mechanics either scientific realism or locality must be abandoned. Some good exmaples are Feynman's many-paths integral and the Copenhagen Interpretation. This doesn't mean that realism is dead in the slightest, especially considering that realism is being restored to quantum mechanics with a greater understanding of the relevant metaphysics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if God is not attributable, such that there is nowhere God is not and nothing God is not, and similarly nowhere God is and nothing God is (the assignment of locality and substance being attribute), where does that leave your arguments?

When you say things like "there is nowhere God is not", you are assigning attributes to God... even if you don't acknowledge that you're doing this.

But if you really did come up with a God that has no attributes at all, it would be impossible to make any intelligible statement about it at all. You would have created a God which can be not known to any degree; any statement about such a God could be rejected as unsupported.

Edit: when you say "God is not attributable", conversation about God necessarily ends. There's nothing else you can say about such a God. I'm not sure that it's even valid to call such a God a "God-concept", since there's no concept to be had.

Edit 2: something else occurs to me: when considering a thing with no attributes, since it has no attributes, I would say that there's no valid basis to apply any sort of term to it at all, including "God".

 

[Willamena]

When you say things like "there is nowhere God is not", you are assigning attributes to God... even if you don't acknowledge that you're doing this.

But if you really did come up with a God that has no attributes at all, it would be impossible to make any intelligible statement about it at all. You would have created a God which can be not known to any degree; any statement about such a God could be rejected as unsupported.

Edit: when you say "God is not attributable", conversation about God necessarily ends. There's nothing else you can say about such a God. I'm not sure that it's even valid to call such a God a "God-concept", since there's no concept to be had.

Edit 2: something else occurs to me: when considering a thing with no attributes, since it has no attributes, I would say that there's no valid basis to apply any sort of term to it at all, including "God".

I acknowledge that it's not possible to speak about anything without assigning attribute --hence why "God" is called ineffable. That doesn't stop us from trying to talk about "God," nor should it. It's where nonliteral methods of communication come in handy. But to harp on stated attributes of the unattributed as if they were essential is simply missing, or even avoiding, the mark.

I don't have to "come up with" a God that is unattributable. It's the oldest image of God in the book.
Brahman -

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I acknowledge that it's not possible to speak about anything without assigning attribute --hence why "God" is called ineffable.

... but not so "ineffable" that you can't "eff" him enough to call him "God", though.

That doesn't stop us from trying to talk about "God," nor should it.

It stops you from talking about God without contradicting yourself.

It's where nonliteral methods of communication come in handy. But to harp on stated attributes of the unattributed as if they were essential is simply missing, or even avoiding, the mark.

What is there to say about an ineffable God? Let's assume this ineffable God exists... so what? Without having any attributes to speak of, its existence doesn't have any implications to speak of either. Such a God makes absolutely no difference in any real way.

In actuality, I think that when people say things like "God is ineffable", they don't really mean to disown any logical consequences of their faith, which is what such a statement implies. Instead, I think it's usually a code phrase that means "even though I've got very definite ideas about God, I don't want you to subject them to rational scrutiny".

I don't have to "come up with" a God that is unattributable. It's the oldest image of God in the book.
Brahman -

From your source:

Its nature consists of the three incommunicable attributes of (1) sat (Absolute Being), (2) chit (Consciousness), (3) ananda (Bliss). This Supreme Being assumes a dual nature — Male and Female. The male aspect is known as Purusha which means “that-which-fills” — and the Female aspect is known as Shakti which translates as “Energy” or “Dynamic Force” or Prakriti — material nature.

So... your example of an unattributable God has three necessary attributes. And gender. Not exactly "unattributable", is it?

 

[Willamena]

What is there to say about an ineffable God? Let's assume this ineffable God exists... so what? Without having any attributes to speak of, its existence doesn't have any implications to speak of either. Such a God makes absolutely no difference in any real way.

That you find no use for "God", nor can conceive a means to say anything about an ineffable "God", stands in stark constrast to song writers, poets, artists of every ilk down through ages, and every ordinary Joe who has ever gleaned an image of God and decided, in their own unique and expressionable ways, to say, "Oh boy!" (to quote Quantum Leap), which is the essential praise.

From your source:

So... your example of an unattributable God has three necessary attributes. And gender. Not exactly "unattributable", is it?

As I said...

(but, not suprisingly, no one was really listening)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That you find no use for "God", nor can conceive a means to say anything about an ineffable "God", stands in stark constrast to song writers, poets, artists of every ilk down through ages, and every ordinary Joe who has ever gleaned an image of God and decided, in their own unique and expressionable ways, to say, "Oh boy!" (to quote Quantum Leap), which is the essential praise.

There is no such thing as an image of the ineffable.

It's one thing to suggest that you've seen a glimpse part of something that you don't fully understand and can't fully see. But it's something completely different (and IMO entirely contradictory) to suggest that you've seen a glimpse of something that can't be seen at all.

Edit: IMO, anything that can be talked about can be rationally considered and explored. If what a person has experienced or believes can't be rationally explored, then this necessarily means that when he talks about those experiences or beliefs, he's talking out of his butt.

As I said...

(but, not suprisingly, no one was really listening)

Vague and conflicting attributes are not the same thing as no attributes at all.

 

[jarofthoughts]

They have physical influences, they exert gravity upon galaxies, they are possibly gravitons from other D brane universes interacting with ours....a point I was trying to make to the poster.

That is one possible explanation. As far as I know though D brane universes has yet to be evidentially shown to be correct. String theory has a lot of work ahead of it.

[FONT=verdana,geneva] ''I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.'' [/FONT]

Stephen Hawking - The Origin of the Universe

I completely forgot to reply to that part of the post. :sorry1:
However, I wouldn't say that that indicates that Hawkins thinks nothing is real, but rather that the model which is our brains interpretation of the data collected by our sense is not necessarily real and should be treated tentatively. Something which I agree with.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Pfft...

Pfft...?
But, surely that's what the words "dark energy" and "dark matter" is?
Place-holders because we know with reasonable certainty that there is something there, but as of yet we have no clue what that something is.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It stops you from talking about God without contradicting yourself.

Why are you so frightened of contradiction?

 

[blackout]

gOd perhaps, has more to do with an experience of Being,
than "faith" in *the existence* of 'being'.

At least, this is so for me.

 

[Willamena]

There is no such thing as an image of the ineffable.

That's one image of the ineffable.

It's one thing to suggest that you've seen a glimpse part of something that you don't fully understand and can't fully see. But it's something completely different (and IMO entirely contradictory) to suggest that you've seen a glimpse of something that can't be seen at all.

"Unseen," then, is its image. That is the word that captures it, describes (unwrites) it, and presents it to another to communicate the thing itself. Each and every take of the world is as complete and fully understood as it's going to be. Fortunately, for us, with each take unique, evolution comes into being: images evolve and understanding grows. The take that includes a 'something beyond' does include something unseen, but its image is not unseen. Be it "God" or something else objectively real, the take invokes imagination to create its image, and it invokes a narrative to "explain" its image.

IMO, anything that can be talked about can be rationally considered and explored. If what a person has experienced or believes can't be rationally explored, then this necessarily means that when he talks about those experiences or beliefs, he's talking out of his butt.

Hey, that looks familiar. Oh, I know where I've seen it --it's my argument. We do rather have lots to say about the ineffable, don't we?

We do talk about, rationally consider and explore the "unseen," the "void," the "ground of being," the "Spirit," innumerable other names. Have, for millennia. I suspect, though, that some people would rather talk about attributes.

Vague and conflicting attributes are not the same thing as no attributes at all.

I was referring to this part: "it's not possible to speak about anything without assigning attribute..." Is speaking about something the same as understanding it? Is understanding something about something the same as it (itself)?

 

[Magic Man]

It is not unjustified for many people.
They have their own brands of evidence..whilst it might not be established scientific evidence it is evidence nonetheless...to them.

Yes, and that lack of objective evidence (that even those people tend to require to believe most other things) means that belief is unjustified.

 

[Magic Man]

God is just as real as the world, and equally justified by opening your eyes and ears. What we see around us, as the world, is an aspect of what we know to be there.

Sorry, but no. God is not as real as the world, and is not equally justified by opening your eyes and ears. We can all see that the world exists by opening our eyes and ears. The evidence for God is only seen by some who want to see it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's one image of the ineffable.

Can you give me any "image of the ineffable" that doesn't involve "effing"?

"Unseen," then, is its image. That is the word that captures it, describes (unwrites) it, and presents it to another to communicate the thing itself. Each and every take of the world is as complete and fully understood as it's going to be. Fortunately, for us, with each take unique, evolution comes into being: images evolve and understanding grows. The take that includes a 'something beyond' does include something unseen, but its image is not unseen. Be it "God" or something else objectively real, the take invokes imagination to create its image, and it invokes a narrative to "explain" its image.

But at the end of the day, you only have two possibilities:

- does the image relate to the object in some way? Then the object is not truly ineffable. We can explore it rationally to some degree.
- does the image not relate to the object at all? Then there is no link. The image is not an image of the object. We can't validly talk about the object at all - not even enough to assign it a name.

Hey, that looks familiar. Oh, I know where I've seen it --it's my argument.

:sarcastic You're disagreeing rather strongly for someone who apparently agrees with me.

We do rather have lots to say about the ineffable, don't we?

We can talk all day about the concept of "ineffability". What we can't do is talk meaningfully about any actually ineffable thing.

We do talk about, rationally consider and explore the "unseen," the "void," the "ground of being," the "Spirit," innumerable other names. Have, for millennia. I suspect, though, that some people would rather talk about attributes.

For millenia, we've also had people arguing that the "unseen" can't rationally be considered at all - "the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao", for instance.

I was referring to this part: "it's not possible to speak about anything without assigning attribute..." Is speaking about something the same as understanding it? Is understanding something about something the same as it (itself)?

It's the word "about" that's key. Our only path to understanding a thing is through that thing's attributes. They're what link the image to the object. If an object has no attributes, then the image does not relate back to the object - in that case, you're not talking about the thing at all.

And as for things that are partially known... that's fine. If something is partially known and partially "ineffable", then the known part can be rationally explored.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are you so frightened of contradiction?

Why don't you care about being truthful?

Edit: less inflammatorily... I care about contradiction because I care about truthfulness. Logically contradictory things cannot be true. If an argument contradicts itself, I'm completely safe in rejecting the argument as invalid.

 

[Willamena]

Can you give me any "image of the ineffable" that doesn't involve "effing"?

Probably not. It's kinda something you have to acquire yourself --transmission of the dharma, and all that.

But at the end of the day, you only have two possibilities:

Frankly, I have a lot more than two.

- does the image relate to the object in some way? Then the object is not truly ineffable. We can explore it rationally to some degree.
- does the image not relate to the object at all? Then there is no link. The image is not an image of the object. We can't validly talk about the object at all - not even enough to assign it a name.

Introducing a "link" to relate two things in the picture is what is unhelpful here. It indicates clear separation between the image and the object --a separation that need neither be real nor necessary (much of eastern religion is involved in dissolving the barrier, the subject/object divide, between "me" and world). There both is and isn't a distinction to be made between the image of an object and the object itself, since we know an image and not the object, and in knowing an image we know the object.

Does the image of "God as ineffable" relate to an object? Yes and no. When an image is inspired, we have an object so to speak; but is it an object, so to speak? No. The image is "God".

We can talk all day about the concept of "ineffability". What we can't do is talk meaningfully about any actually ineffable thing.

Depends on what you find meaningful.

For millenia, we've also had people arguing that the "unseen" can't rationally be considered at all - "the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao", for instance.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao" is quintessentially spoken about the Tao. That's poetry.

It's the word "about" that's key. Our only path to understanding a thing is through that thing's attributes. They're what link the image to the object. If an object has no attributes, then the image does not relate back to the object - in that case, you're not talking about the thing at all.

And as for things that are partially known... that's fine. If something is partially known and partially "ineffable", then the known part can be rationally explored.

It's not our only path. If there was only one path, one way, then there'd be only one religion.

The world is not quite so black and white.

 

[Willamena]

I care about contradiction because I care about truthfulness. Logically contradictory things cannot be true. If an argument contradicts itself, I'm completely safe in rejecting the argument as invalid.

And yet, truthfully, there is contradiction.

(i.e. it's just another image of the composed world)