mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Read my post again. And then ask again if you still want to.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who is God?
- Thread starter dybmh
- Start date
Read my post again. And then ask again if you still want to.
I’m not seeing it. Expound, please.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
My answer is this. Look at the 3 base axiomatic assumptions in naturalism. The universe is real, orderly and knowable. That is suppose to be without God, but they are all non-materialistic in ontological terms. Even science assumes that the universe is in a sense a who.
Because we have a mind, it would seem if there is a God, God has a mind.
"Because we have a mind, it would seem, if there is a God, God has a mind." Why stop there?
Why so? This is only if we must conceive of God in the human image… as a reflection of man.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Because it only tells you that we might be right or that we might be projecting something on to the universe. I am a skeptic, dybmh. That is how far it gets with reason. The rest is faith.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Agreed! I was quoting another poster. Then commenting on just one part of it. They way I did that is a formality that some people do here on the forum from time to time. It's the most respectful way to reply to someone if commenting on just one part of their post.
The idea is to quote to whole reply so that anyone reading the thread will see all the words and ideas brought from the one writing it. Nothing is being cherry picked or taken out of context. Also, the person who wrote the original post, in theory, knows that their entire post was read and understood. Then, if there is just one part of the post that is being commented on, that part is copied and pasted into the body of the reply in quotes. If you scroll back, I think you'll see that's what I did.
Most people don't do it this way, and I rarely do it this way. But, for some reason I wanted to extend maximum courtesy in the manner of my reply. I know of one person who replies this way regularly, and I think they are being very cautious with the forum rules. One of the rules prohibits editting / misquoting another person's posts. During debates, sometimes, people will accuse each other of petty rule violations ( "you're editting my posts!!!" ) even though all that's happening is they are cropping out the relevant part. On the other hand, I have been in debates where the person always, I mean always, rips out just one little part of the reply and ignores everything else that was said. This is extremely frustrating trying to make a nuanced multi-part argument if the debate partner ignores 90% of what is said.
So, that's what happened here. What I'm saying in my reply is, "I understand what you're saying, but, why stop there?"
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If I have an X, Y, Z, then God also has X, Y, and Z. If you have A, B, C, then God has A, B, C. If you and I have A, B, C and X, Y, Z, then God has A, B, C, and X, Y, Z? Correct?
Why stop there?
How about you and me and my neighbor, and the cat, and the table, and the government, an artist, and coffee, and... and ... and ... and .... all of us, each and every thing, and even non-things all have attributes. If I have ... then God has ... is a massive idea. It never ends. I imagine it mathematically as a multi-dimensional domain with infinite dimensions. Something like this:
( ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ∞ , ... )
If infinity includes both positive infinity and negative infinity then this infinite domain can be used to represent symbolically every thing and also every non-thing that ever was, is, isn't, wasn't, and could be. Each dimension represents an attribute which exists as a spectrum. These attributes are completely unlimited.
Most people are familiar with 3 dimensions, X, Y, and Z in the form of ( X, Y, Z ) because that can be used to describe 3 dimensional space. But that same model can be expanded into 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions, or 6 or even infinite dimensions. Visually, in the imagination, this process can be started, but it's impossible to finish. It begins with nothing, then becomes a dot. The dot becomes a line extending forever in both directions. The line becomes a flat surface forever growing. The flat surface becomes a solid cube forever expanding. And on and on it goes. I don't know how to imagine it past this. It's a great big question mark. The question is the answer.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Some of you may be asking, what is the point of all this? Is it just a mental excercise? Some sort of self-gratifying meditation? In a way yes, but also in a way no.
If an infinite God wanted to have a relationship with a finite being. If it wanted to have a real relationship where the finite being understood this infinite God, one way ( maybe the only way? ) to accomplish this is to remain hidden. The finite being would never understand infinity if it was revealed to them. The mind would always encapsulate the concept into the borders of the revelation which defeats the understanding and sabatoges the relationship. In this way, "knowing" must be avoided in favor of "understanding". And this is a reason why a God which desires to have a relationship, a real relationship, would still remain hidden. Because it's easier to understand this way. It's easier to understand the unanswered question.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
Why would God want a relationship with something finite? Unless it is God’s will to make the finite (with whom God is relating) infinite?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If God is truly infinite, then all of the attributes which define infinity require an otherness. And many of those attributes require a relationship. For example, without citizens, there is no monarchy. If there is no monarch, then God is not infinite. God, in this case is infinite excluding being a monarch. That's not truly infinite.
A truly infinite God would have infinite different types of relationships. One of those types would be a relationship through understanding.
I don't think this works.
Infinity + Infinity = Infinity
and
Infinity * Infinity = Infinity
In other words, once the finite becomes infinite then it is nullified and completely eclipsed into the pre-existing infinity. When that happens, there is no relationship because there is no other to relate to.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
That is when the story starts over and the infinite becomes finite again. The end is the beginning. The beginning is the end.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I don't think that works either. Can you explain how infinity can become finite? Just as adding to infinity renders infinity, subtracting a finite from infinity renders infinity. The infinite remains infinite regardless of this.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
The infinite becomes finite within a subjective frame in which the infinite is hidden from the “finite’s” subjectivity. As the finite relates to the infinite, then the finite and the infinite merge and the infinite is revealed.
Last edited:
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
Subjectively finite but ultimately infinite (just hidden).
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK, thank you. I think i understand what you're saying. It breaks down for me with the merge. I don't think a merge is possible from within a subjective frame. This is because a subjective relationship is at least part projection. The finite being will project part of it's finite qualities onto the infinite. The relationship, at best, is only part true, and could be completely false. As a result, the revelation would not be completely true, and a merge could not happen, the infinite would be trapped in its finite state. So, I don't think a merge is possible from within the subjective frame.
None of this is a problem unless the goal is the cycle you described earlier, "the beginning is the end, and the and is the beginning". If the goal is a relationship, then there is certainly an opportunity for that, but it will be only part true. However, this idea of the infinite being trapped might be exactly what happens. Perhaps this is how finite beings and objects can come from something infinite. Parts of the infinite become trapped, in a manner of speaking.
On the other hand, if the finite being approaches the infinite as an objective unknown, that relationship is completely true without any possible subjective projection. But this requires acceptance and acknowledgement that the finite is not infinite. Otherwise the same problem occurs with projection, and putting borders around an infinite concept. And this sabatoges the relationship.
Last edited:
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
Merge is incomplete. It’s gradual death + merge. Then, complete death + rebirth.
Your intuition is saying that we lose all subjectivity at the final stage (rebirth)? I agree with that.
Last edited:
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK! Who is God?
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
How about “that which calls us into the silence and darkness of the chaotic unknown”?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Job 12:22
DNB
Christian
Well, you're predicating that there is no God, and that man adjusts his views on God according to the culture in order to retain adherents.
Theists perceive God both in the architect of the universe and in the nature of man. Thus, God's attributes impose themselves upon humans, and not that man conjures up these characteristics by his own vain imagination. And, consequently, man has induced that God is, as far as masculinity is concerned, sovereign, all powerful and mighty, a disciplinarian, austere, all knowing, incoercible.