What is God

[Aupmanyav]

Nowhere in the Bible (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) does it use the word "God", nowhere in the Qur'an (Arabic) does it use the word "God", nowhere in the Vedas or Upanishads (Sanskrit) does it use the word "God", nowhere in the Daodejing or Zhuangzi (Chinese) does it use the word "God". Yet all of these texts describe a peculiar universal absolute (and expounded in their traditions) that appears under many forms an names, how about that!

Did your Guru teach you this dogma? I'm sure most Advaitists would slap your wrists and tell you to start again.

"According to Strong's Concordance, the term God is mentioned 4473 times in 3893 verses in the KJV." Google Search
I understand you said Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.
And YHWH, Allah are his personal names, No other name should be used. Muslims cannot use 'Khhuda' for him. Not a universal absolute like Brahman in Hinduism. It is a personalized interfering entity, which Brahman is not.

Advaitists come in many shades. Most are theists. I am a strict advaitist and a strong atheist, one does not find them commonly. Furthermore, I am my own guru (see my title).

 

[Firemorphic]

"According to Strong's Concordance, the term God is mentioned 4473 times in 3893 verses in the KJV." Google Search

Yeah, English translations

What about translations (like New Jerusalem etc) that don't switch the many names and terminologies for a single English word "God"?

The point is, however, that in the original languages and cultures of the Bible, the word "God" is not used and did not exist under that word. Simple.

Not a universal absolute like Brahman in Hinduism.

Actually yes, that's the very point of monotheism, Moses wasn't replacing one idol with another. Islam specifically makes this explicit and implicit as the Tawhid. You may call it Brahman but your Vedic ancestors didn't. Maybe we should call it Hari, maybe AUM, maybe all or none of these things.
As a Muslim that studies a lot of Hindu texts quite often (and was caught between both Hinduism and Islam before originally choosing Islam), I can affirm that you don't (collectively) believe much that is inherently different from us, really. It's just that you, Hindus in general, are too attached to your own terminology to recognize it. However the Atman/Brahman thing is definitely within Islam.

Advaitists come in many shades. Most are theists. I am a strict advaitist and a strong atheist, one does not find them commonly.

Yes, that's bound to make your supposed practice of Advaita largely pointless. I don't get it, you profess to love Buddha elsewhere, is Vedanta just a cultural thing for you? Why not Buddhism?

 

[atanu]

Nowhere in the Bible (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) does it use the word "God", nowhere in the Qur'an (Arabic) does it use the word "God", nowhere in the Vedas or Upanishads (Sanskrit) does it use the word "God", nowhere in the Daodejing or Zhuangzi (Chinese) does it use the word "God". Yet all of these texts describe a peculiar universal absolute (and expounded in their traditions) that appears under many forms an names, how about that!




Did your Guru teach you this dogma? I'm sure most Advaitists would slap your wrists and tell you to start again.

Also, only one person in your list is worshiped. You failed to notice what I was even talking about

Ishwara is however used in Vedas and Upanishads.

 

[atanu]

By its continued succes in doing so.

That does not answer the question. You are saying that the fact that we continually improve accuracy of prediction etc., indicates that we are competent to enquire about truth.

I agree.

My question was different: Given the presumption that intelligence is epiphenomenon of some unknown mechanism in brain, how do we know that we have the competence to judge truth value of propositions? How do we explain our competence for rationality and true reasoning?

Good question. The brain fools us all the time.
Like for example in this picture here:

YES, your brain is ridiculously easy to fool! This is why you guard against such brain farts.

Again that is not the point.

But let me ask who finds that brain is fooling us or is being fooled? Who is there apart from the so-called epiphenomenally generated intellegince to determine its mistakes?

 

[Fool]

John was perhaps suffering from tinnitus. Such people hear and speak tongues (Paul).

you're confused. listening to the mind, meditation, doesn't require an external sense. listening to the Spirit, consciousness, mind isn't an outward process.

 

[Fool]

God Himself does not flow in and out of hearts. His spirit does the searching.

and you somehow believe that god and it's spirit are disconnected from each other? like your spirit and god's are disconnected from each other?



Eccl 12:6-Eccl 12:7 NIV Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well, and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You're confused. listening to the mind, meditation, doesn't require an external sense. listening to the Spirit, consciousness, mind isn't an outward process.

Listening to one's mind, talking to one self is OK, I understand that. I too do it many a times. But these people hear the voice of a God. Now, that situation, IMHO, requires medical attention.

 

[LightofTruth]

and you somehow believe that god and it's spirit are disconnected from each other? like your spirit and god's are disconnected from each other?

No, God's spirit emanates from Himself. It is not disconnected from Him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That does not answer the question.

It does actually, as its continued succes is an indicator of its competence....

You are saying that the fact that we continually improve accuracy of prediction etc., indicates that we are competent to enquire about truth.

I agree.

Owkay then.

My question was different: Given the presumption that intelligence is epiphenomenon of some unknown mechanism in brain, how do we know that we have the competence to judge truth value of propositions?

Your presumption doesn't matter. The outcome, and answer, remains the same.
Continued success, is an indicator of competence.

How do we explain our competence for rationality and true reasoning?

It works
I don't think it's surprising. The fact that we as a species survived, gives me the expectation that we are able to obtain a certain form of rationality and reasoning. I don't think this requires any additional explanation.

I'ld find it surprising if the opposite were true... if we were INCAPABLE of rational reasoning, yet managed to survive as a social species dependend on cooperation anyway I'ld expect such a species to go extinct rather quickly.

Again that is not the point.

Then what is?

But let me ask who finds that brain is fooling us or is being fooled? Who is there apart from the so-called epiphenomenally generated intellegince to determine its mistakes?

Why "apart"?

We discover our own mistakes.
Apart from us ourselves, there isn't anybody to my knowledge to point out our mistakes.

Either we discover it ourselves, or we stay fooled.


EDIT: fixed typo and quoting issue

 

[Fool]

Listening to one's mind, talking to one self is OK, I understand that. I too do it many a times. But these people hear the voice of a God. Now, that situation, IMHO, requires medical attention.

the mind is the voice of god, hear what the spirit says.

the word spirit is equated with the psyche, literally.


the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides

 

[Fool]

No, God's spirit emanates from Himself. It is not disconnected from Him.

then when god searches the heart, it is present in the heart.

how do you equate in the father's house as separate from it's mansions, or temples?


mansions Strong's G3438 mone - metaph. of the God the Holy Spirit indwelling believers


1 Corinthians 3:16
Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

 

[LightofTruth]

then when god searches the heart, it is present in the heart.

how do you equate in the father's house as separate from it's mansions, or temples?


1 Corinthians 3:16
Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

Each individual believer is a temple. And the combined believers are also a temple. The Church, which is the temple of God, is the combination of all believers. They are also called the Bride of Christ.

When the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were sent down to the believers, it enabled them for the work of establishing the body of believers.

 

[Fool]

Each individual believer is a temple. And the combined believers are also a temple. The Church, which is the temple of God, is the combination of all believers. They are also called the Bride of Christ.

When the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were sent down to the believers, it enabled them for the work of establishing the body of believers.

the people didn't physically change. god definitely didn't change. they woke up, realized what was already here. they spiritually, mentally changed?


I AM that I AM. the name of names. baptism, immersion in the name can change things.

 

[Quintessence]

There are many parts of the world where that is still true.
India, Pakistan come to mind where large swathes are grown up Muslim, Hindu - but again the leaders have great power to control their flock

Sometimes, certainly. I notice some folks overstating that power, and others understating it. The challenge is determining what the leadership structure of a culture really is. Not all cultures have this sort of "top down" default where there is a "flock" of people who follow someone's call. In any case, human control is ultimately very limited regardless of leadership model. We are all a product of our environment - the so-called leaders as much as the followers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

the mind is the voice of god, hear what the spirit says.

That cannot be, because my mind tells me not to believe in such superstitions as God and soul. Is it God saying do not believe in me?

India, Pakistan come to mind where large swathes are grown up Muslim, Hindu - but again the leaders have great power to control their flock

Hindus are autonomous people and proud to be so. You would not find two Hindus with the same belief. There will always be (small) differences. Hindus cannot be controlled by religion, Hinduism is not structured that way. Our religious leaders have various philosophies, we have thousands of holy books which differ in their content.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Actually yes, that's the very point of monotheism, Moses wasn't replacing one idol with another. Islam specifically makes this explicit and implicit as the Tawhid. You may call it Brahman but your Vedic ancestors didn't. Maybe we should call it Hari, maybe AUM, maybe all or none of these things.

Yes, that's bound to make your supposed practice of Advaita largely pointless. I don't get it, you profess to love Buddha elsewhere, is Vedanta just a cultural thing for you? Why not Buddhism?

Brahman idea is very much there in Vedas. But then there are many Gods too. That was the Aryan belief. The indigenous people also had many Gods and Goddesses. We ended up having all the deities, Aryan as well as indigenous

"Hiraṇyagharbhaḥ samavartatāghre bhūtasya jātaḥ patirekaāsīt l sa dādhāra pṛithivīṃ dyāmutemāṃ kasmai devāyahaviṣā vidhema ll"
IN the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, born Only Lord of all created beings. He fixed and holds up this earth and heaven. What God shall we adore with our oblation?
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10121.htm
(This hymn is known as Hiranyagarbha Sukta. Hiranyagarbha means 'One who has arisen from Golden Womb'. This is normally the first verse chanted in any Hindu ritual)

I am very fond of Buddha. Actually, I consider him to be my second Guru, my first Guru being Adi Sankaracharya. But I have differences with Buddha. I do not agree with him when he says life is sorrow. I do not agree with him when he says do not pay attention to how the universe began. I am a science enthusiast and formation of universe and evolution of creatures is very interesting to me. Furthermore, I am not a peacenik and I am a non-vegetarian. Therefore, I am not a Buddhist.

Anatta (non-substantiativeness) and Anicca (impermanence) are common to Advaita as well as Buddhism. We term it as 'Maya'. Actually, many religious leaders of that time accused Adi Sankara to be a Buddhist. Personally, I do not find any other difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[atanu]

Your presumption doesn't matter. The outcome, and answer, remains the same.
Continued success, is an indicator of competence.

It is not my presumption. It is the presumption of materialistic world view that I am questioning. Materialism presumes that somehow inert chemicals generated life and intelligence.

There is no evidence of such a presumption. Statistically, the probability that random chemical interactions will give rise to Einstein’s General Relativity or Beethoven’s music is zero only.

Much more plausible, scientifically, is that consciousness IS the very fabric of existence.

I'ld find it surprising if the opposite were true... if we were INCAPABLE of rational reasoning, yet managed to survive as a social species dependend on cooperation anyway I'ld expect such a species to go extinct rather quickly.

Why? Archean rocks have not gone extinct.

Why "apart"?

We discover our own mistakes.
Apart from us ourselves, there isn't anybody

Who is we?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But let me ask who finds that brain is fooling us or is being fooled? Who is there apart from the so-called epiphenomenally generated intellegince to determine its mistakes?

People say "I thought that is the problem, however, on second thought I realized that the problem lay someplace else". I have said that. You may also have said that. The 'who' is not another person. The 'who' is the same person but in the second instance has taken more variables into consideration. There is casual thinking, and there is this second thought, deeper thinking, analysis, meditation, etc. which gives us the better result.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not my presumption. It is the presumption of materialistic world view that I am questioning. Materialism presumes that somehow inert chemicals generated life and intelligence.

And it doesn't matter. As said, the outcome remains the same.
We are what we are and can do what we can do. If tomorrow we find out that our origins are different then what we thought, that wouldn't change anything about what we are and what we can do.

There is no evidence of such a presumption

I disagree though. Everything we have ever observed was physical and materialistic in nature. We have no examples of anything other then the physical and materialistic.
Does that mean that only the physical and materialistic exists? No. But it does mean that that is the only thing we have confirmed to exist. As a result, we have no valid reasons as of yet to suggest anything else.

This might be a good time to point out to you that I'm not a materialist, if by "materialist" you mean the dogmatic position expressed with certainty that the physical and material IS all that exists.

At best, I'ld say that "the physical and material is all that seems to exist", as in: I have no evidence of non-material, non-physical things. But I have lots of evidence of many material and physical things.

Once more: does that mean that that is all that exists? No. But it does mean that those are the only things that we can confirm to exist and as a direct result, we have no justifiable reasons to suggest anything else.

Statistically, the probability that random chemical interactions will give rise to Einstein’s General Relativity or Beethoven’s music is zero only.

Good luck supporting that wild assertion.

Much more plausible, scientifically, is that consciousness IS the very fabric of existence.

How is that "plausible" or "scientific"?
Please give me a single piece of evidence that "consciousness" can exist absent a brain.
To be scientific (or plausible), you'll have to be able to provide pretty darn good evidence.

I say you can't.

Why? Archean rocks have not gone extinct.

Yeah, because the living biological species homo sapiens is analogous to rocks

Who is we?

Humans.

 

[Jim]

For our ancestors, the gods were various aspects of nature and the universe, expressed poetically and artfully with allegory, metaphor, anthropomorphisms, and so on.

[/QUOTE]When we get right down to it, we really don't know what our ancestors thought about the gods. [/QUOTE]
I see a possible contradiction there.

I think that what you’re saying about what the gods were to people, might have been true for some of them, but I also think that there might have been always been as much diversity in people’s ways of thinking about gods as there is now.