10 Mar 06
This whole dilemma arises from the delusion of the individual self. When we assume that our separate self is absolutely real, then we project this idea onto "God", and create the notion of a God as some exaggerated expression of individuality. Then, we have a God who "has powers", "can obey or disobey laws", has "personal characteristics", and so forth.
The Buddha deconstructed this whole illusory dilemma long ago. The root problem is the assumption that the individual self is real in any absolute or ultimate fashion.
The Zen expression, "show me your original face before your parents were born", addresses this root issue by directing the mind to search for the origin point of *identity*. (As does the koan "Who am I?", that the Advaita sage Ramana Maharshi used, for example). In time, it becomes increasingly clear that the issue of separate identity is itself the underlying problem. Once that is understood, any tendency to project separate identity onto our idea of God falls away. We give up the attempt to anthropomorphize and fashion God in our image and speculate on what God can or cannot do.
As with all questions about the absolute, there is usually no answer, there is rather only a deconstructing of the question and the presumed separate identity of the questioner. There is a line in one of the Psalms that speaks to this -- "be still, and know that I am". This "I am" is not a particular identity, as such, and thus cannot possess individual characteristics, like an ice cream flavour, or individual abilities, like a "talent" or a "capacity". It is simply pure Being-ness itself, pure infinite Presence in which all appearances of individuality are endlessly arising and falling away, like waves in an infinite ocean.
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by MetamorphosisHippy.
This whole dilemma arises from the delusion of the individual self. When we assume that our separate self is absolutely real, then we project this idea onto "God", and create the notion of a God as some exaggerated expression of individuality. Then, we have a God who "has powers", "can obey or disobey laws", has "personal characteristics", and so forth ...[text shortened]... ity are endlessly arising and falling away, like waves in an infinite ocean.
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrPretty facile attempt at rebuttal 😕 Typical ego-driven assessment, too. Think larger 😲
Hippy.
"...In time, it becomes increasingly clear that the issue of separate identity is itself the underlying problem. Once that is understood, any tendency to project separate identity onto our idea of God falls away. We give up the attempt to anthropomorphize and fashion God in our image and speculate on what God can or cannot do."
If we did actually lose this sense of separation from the rest of the Godhead, we might actually end up treating the entire universe with the respect that we feel we deserve for our petty little selves 😀
11 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by widgetWhen I aim at rebuttals, I provide reasons. Besides, I happen to agree with M's general view, as you would know if you had read any of the threads where he and I (and vistesd) presented consonant positions concering the ground of being. Try not to jump to conclusions about my views, 'cause on that score you don't know what you're talking about. Also, learn to recognize play as play.
Pretty facile attempt at rebuttal 😕 Typical ego-driven assessment, too. Think larger 😲
"...In time, it becomes increasingly clear that the issue of separate identity is itself the underlying problem. Once that is understood, any tendency to project separate identity onto our idea of God falls away. We give up the attempt to anthropomorphize and fa ng the entire universe with the respect that we feel we deserve for our petty little selves 😀
Cheers.
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrWouldn't want to jump up and down on your ground of being 😳 Might seem the earth moved?
...as you would know if you had read any of the threads where he and I (and vistesd) presented consonant positions concering the ground of being. Try not to jump to conclusions about my views, 'cause on that score you don't know what you're talking about.
So I'll just nip back though the past archives of where you all have been together with your consonants looking for vowel play... 😉 Perhaps we are only here to learn gamely from each other's ignorance.
Then again, that may be a perspective that you all haven't consonantized yet... Be with God! 😀
11 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI would be very interested in looking at those. Do you have any links? I tried using the 'search forums' feature, but it seems to blow.
the threads where he and I (and vistesd) presented consonant positions concering the ground of being.
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't have links, and this was at least a year ago (so it was probably unfair to reprimand widget for his ignorance). The one I remember explicitly involved an extended discussion with Ivanhoe et. al. cocerning why nobody can have substantial propositional knowledge of the divine (though ineffable experiential knowledge is possible, and we can cultivate an openness to such experiences). Yes, the search function here is atrocious.
I would be very interested in looking at those. Do you have any links? I tried using the 'search forums' feature, but it seems to blow.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrOmnipresent? Sounds like a fancy word to say "occupies a lot of space" (indeed all of it!). I occupy space to. Did you know? And it still takes time for messages to reach one side of my body to the other (consider delayed reactions which basically aplplies to all physiological reactions).
The obvious answer is that He is omnipresent. Another obvious answer is that He is bound by logical possibility, not nomological possibility. A third obvious answer is that your argument is question begging, since it assumes that God doesn't know the future; He doesn't need to wait for information to travel to Him, since He has known for all time just what would occur.
God knows the future? Well... thats actually impossible. Since, the future is indeterminate (see QUANTUM THEORY) and there could be multiple futures (but who knows maybe God can escape that restraint as well).
The objection that God night not be bound by "nomological possibility" is the entire point of the thread.
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou don't know what omnipresent means. It certainly does not mean 'occupies all space'. The only stuff that occupies space is physical stuff. God is non-physical.
Omnipresent? Sounds like a fancy word to say "occupies a lot of space" (indeed all of it!). I occupy space to. Did you know? And it still takes time for messages to reach one side of my body to the other (consider delayed reactions which basically aplplies to all physiological reactions).
God knows the future? Well... thats actually impossible. Since, t ...[text shortened]... that God night not be bound by "nomological possibility" is the entire point of the thread.
Quantum theory does not entail that the future is indeterminate. This is simply a mistake on your part. If any hidden variable theory (local or stochastic) is correct, then there is no argument from the data to the conclusion that the world is indeterminate. Besides, QM faces its own dificulties, like the measurement problem.
You're right about the third point, however. 😳
11 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAlain Aspect did some experiments that rule out local hidden variable theories, essentially he tested Bell's inequality. Quantum theory does mean that you can't predict the future as far as individual particles are concerned, you can predict averages though.
You don't know what omnipresent means. It certainly does not mean 'occupies all space'. The only stuff that occupies space is physical stuff. God is non-physical.
Quantum theory does not entail that the future is indeterminate. This is simply a mistake on your part. If any hidden variable theory (local or stochastic) is correct, then there is no argume ...[text shortened]... iculties, like the measurement problem.
You're right about the third point, however. 😳
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat would entail that the future was indeterminable by us, not that the future itself was indeterminate.
Alain Aspect did some experiments that rule out local hidden variable theories, essentially he tested Bell's inequality. Quantum theory does mean that you can't predict the future as far as individual particles are concerned, you can predict averages though.
11 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYou forgot to add "old" 😛 ...and where is Frogstomp's "splash"?
Hippy.
To carry on bbarr's remark about God not being found "within" space, here's a few rational steps for proposing that God is not an "entity" that can be defined as such...
1. Consciousness ( a self-aware entity, or the "I" ) can exist only via defining itself in contrast to other entities, or what it is not. We can define this simply as "I" = "A", and all that is "not I" = "B".
2. "I" ( "A" ) appears to exist only because "you" or "this" ( not-I, or "B" ) appears to exist. That is, "object" appears to exist only because "subject" appears to exist (or vice versa). The Universe seems to exist only because "I" seem to exist. The entire universe -- the Totality (all possible worlds) -- can be understood simply as "I" + "not-I", or "A" + "B". We can designate this product of "A" and "B" as simply "C". "C" = the Totality. (And this includes all possible sub-totalities, or "other" totalities).
3. Therefore, a specific individual conscious entity must be less than the Totality, or, simply, "A" < "C". This is because if the entity was equal to the Totality, it would have nothing to contrast itself with.
4. If God is anything it must be the Totality, as this is by definition the indivisible One, outside of which there can be nothing. Thus, God = "C".
5. Therefore, God cannot be an individual entity or "person", as any entity or person must necessarily be less than the All. ( "A" < "C" ). Further, if God existed prior to the All, then God would necessarily have been unconscious, as God would have had nothing to contrast himself with. Having nothing to contrast himself with, he could not be a specific entity.
6. Ergo, God is not an entity. If that is true, then speculation on what God would be "capable of" would seem pointless as there is nothing that is not God.
7. The final step in this reasoning is that individuals do not, in the ultimate sense, exist. This is the essence of the enlightened understanding in most mystical or esoteric traditions. It is also why such an understanding is decidely unpopular, because the ego by its very nature strives to preserve its separate existence.
11 Mar 06
Originally posted by widgetThat might be so if the "petty little self" actually had absolute existence. But if it is nothing but a temporary appearance, a blip in space and time that arises and falls away, then the dilemma dissolves.
If we did actually lose this sense of separation from the rest of the Godhead, we might actually end up treating the entire universe with the respect that we feel we deserve for our petty little selves 😀
11 Mar 06
Unlikely that feckless fussing about the fringes of ecstasy with your fuzzy puzzle of numinous buzzwords can serve as any reprimand, bb 🙄 Whether deliberately or simply out of fear, you're missing the point.
I believe grace is our natural state, our birthright, something we are weaned from by our cultures - bent like mindless slaves to promulgate their myths of oppression :'( Naturally, our tyrant lords benefit. 😀
While you debate the count of angels on your pin heads, they flutter unnoticed around you. Imagine the moment. Inhabit it. I like Kerouac's: "Cats yawn because they know there's nothing to do." 😴