Definition of "god"?

[Zephyr]

Did you recognize me?

 

[plumjam]

Meher Baba on this: (from discourse 'God and the Individual')

GOD is infinite. He is beyond the opposites of good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and vice, birth and death, pleasures and suffering. Such dual aspects do not belong to God. If we take God as one separate entity, He becomes one term in relational existence. Just as good is the counterpart of bad, God becomes the counterpart of not-God, and the Infinite comes to be looked upon as the opposite of the finite. When we talk of the Infinite and the finite, we are referring to them as two, and the Infinite has already become the second part of the duality. But the Infinite belongs to the non-dual order of being. If the Infinite is looked upon as the counterpart of the finite, it is strictly speaking no longer infinite but a species of the finite, for it stands outside the finite as its opposite and is thus limited. Since the Infinite cannot be the second part of the finite, the apparent existence of the finite is false. The Infinite alone exists. God cannot be brought down to the domain of duality. There is only one being in reality and it is the Universal Soul. The existence of the finite or the limited is only apparent or imaginary.

and (from discourse 'God as Infinite Love')

THOSE who try to understand God through the intellect alone, arrive at some cold and dry concept which misses the very essence of the nature of God. It is true that God is infinite knowledge, infinite existence, infinite power and infinite bliss, but God is not understood in His essence until He is also understood as infinite love. In the Beyond State from which the entire universe springs and into which it ultimately merges, God is eternally infinite love. It is only when God’s love is viewed in the limited context of forms (which arise in the interim period of the appearance of the illusory universe of duality) that its infinity seems to have been impaired.

for the curious, more here:
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

God is who/what agrees with you when you do something which will end up making you look bad in history books.

 

[Hokulele]

He is beyond the opposites of good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and vice, birth and death, pleasures and suffering. Such dual aspects do not belong to God.

God is eternally infinite love.

Holy contradictions, Batman!

 

[andyandy]

God is who/what agrees with you when you do something which will end up making you look bad in history books.

I like this one, is it your own?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I like this one, is it your own?

I think so.

 

[plumjam]

Holy contradictions, Batman!

In case you missed it, the first part was explaining why any attempt at defining God will, by logical necessity, be less than adequate.

Actually, in the second part, there is no contradiction whatsoever. This is because infinite love (being infinite) belongs to the non-dual realm.
In other words, infinite love is not the opposite of finite love. Infinite love has no opposite.
It is only finite love that would have an opposite (finite hate).

What about 'infinite hate'?
Hate, being a separative force, could logically have no place in the non-dual, infinite, unitary reality referred to as God.

 

[Tricky]

Actually, in the second part, there is no contradiction whatsoever. This is because infinite love (being infinite) belongs to the non-dual realm.

It belongs to the imaginary realm. Like the square root of -1, "infinite" anything is a mathematical concept that has no correspondence to anything real.

In other words, infinite love is not the opposite of finite love. Infinite love has no opposite.

Of course it has no opposite, because it has no meaning. Now there are a lot of definitions of the word "love" that vary from sexual to gustatory, but they are not without limit. If there were no limit to the meanings, then the word would have no usefulness at all. So unless you can come up with a solid meaning for "infinite love", then the term has no relevance.

It is only finite love that would have an opposite (finite hate).

They are linguistic opposites, but in their abstracts, they have much in common. You can even make a sentence that parses perfectly using both, like "I love to hate bigots." To try to conflate them with mathematical terms like "infinite" is perhaps poetic, but not describing reality.

What about 'infinite hate'?
Hate, being a separative force, could logically have no place in the non-dual, infinite, unitary reality referred to as God.

This is gobbledygook. Hate is not a real force at all, nor is it necessarily separative. You could say, perhaps, that cops are a force brought together and bound by their hatred for crime.

Spiritualist claptrap doesn't play well here. We are skeptics with highly active and fine-tuned BS detectors.

 

[Pardalis]

If you take the bible, for an entity who's allegedily infinitely loving, he seems infinitely irritable too.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

 

[plumjam]

It belongs to the imaginary realm. Like the square root of -1, "infinite" anything is a mathematical concept that has no correspondence to anything real.

In your experience.
People who have experienced infinity would beg to differ.

Of course it has no opposite, because it has no meaning.

If you say that a term has no meaning in the realm of duality it does not follow that the term has no meaning in, or useful application to, the realm of non-duality.

Now there are a lot of definitions of the word "love" that vary from sexual to gustatory, but they are not without limit. If there were no limit to the meanings, then the word would have no usefulness at all. So unless you can come up with a solid meaning for "infinite love", then the term has no relevance

The term "infinite love" has no solid meaning or usefulness to you simply because it currently lies outside your experience of reality to date. That is not the case for everyone. To assume so is just faith on your part.

They are linguistic opposites, but in their abstracts, they have much in common. You can even make a sentence that parses perfectly using both, like "I love to hate bigots."

Here you are talking about finite love and hate. Love and hate in the world of duality.

To try to conflate them with mathematical terms like "infinite" is perhaps poetic, but not describing reality.

You are making a faith-based assumption that infinity can only apply in the world of mathematics. Why should this be so? Why do mathematicians get a free pass here, yet theologians/philosophers are for some unknown reason prohibited?
If you are willing to accept infinity in one area, why pre-decide that it cannot exist in other areas?

This is gobbledygook. Hate is not a real force at all, nor is it necessarily separative. You could say, perhaps, that cops are a force brought together and bound by their hatred for crime.

Of course hate is a force. Forces (which, remember, are completely mysterious) are not confined to physics, they also exist throughout the hierarchy of the dual world. There are psychological, economic, political, social, military, chemical, biological..etc.. forces. To insist that there are not would entail a radical reorganisation of human language. Without the psychological force of hate the person who has just been punched in the face, would not have been punched in the face.

Spiritualist claptrap doesn't play well here. We are skeptics with highly active and fine-tuned BS detectors.

Spiritualism is something else entirely.
Who is this "we"? What I see here a lot more than 'skeptics', is a large majority who have a strong faith in philosophical naturalism. Period.
To equate 'being skeptical', with 'believing in philosophical naturalism' is just a basic mistake. It is also an innacurate and deliberately self-preening appropriation of a term that should be neutral vis-a-vis the naturalism/supernaturalism debate.
Unfortunately this is a trap that a whole bunch of people, who should know better, fall into again and again.

 

[Pardalis]

In your experience.
People who have experienced infinity would beg to differ.

I'm starting to feel infinite boredom right now just reading you.

Who is this "we"? What I see here a lot more than 'skeptics', is a large majority who have a strong faith in philosophical naturalism. Period.
To equate 'being skeptical', with 'believing in philosophical naturalism' is just a basic mistake. It is also an innacurate and deliberately self-preening appropriation of a term that should be neutral vis-a-vis the naturalism/supernaturalism debate.
Unfortunately this is a trap that a whole bunch of people, who should know better, fall into again and again.

Says the person who talks of things "outside the experience of reality" that are "completely mysterious" as fact.

 

[plumjam]

I'm starting to feel infinite boredom right now just reading you.

So bored that you went on to read what I wrote right to the end.

Says the person who talks of things "outside the experience of reality" that are "completely mysterious" as fact.

You're misquoting me. What I actually wrote was "outside your experience of reality".
There are plenty of aspects of reality which are completely mysterious, yet nonetheless factual. As I said, if you are a believer in philosophical naturalism your whole worldview rests on top of completely mysterious aspects of reality i.e. the existence of physical laws.

 

[Olowkow]

Physical laws are not all that mysterious once you do a little reading on the subject. For example, why does gravity obey the inverse square law? No mystery at all. It is consistent with the geometry of the real world. It would be very mysterious if it didn't. At least physics has a system in place for pursuing the nature of the laws, while religion does not. As for why the laws exist? Anybody's guess. "I don't know" is no different from "god did it".

 

[six7s]

God®™ is the most fantastic invention, ever!

Easy to use and available in a wide variety of sizes and flavours to suit all budgets

Simply apply to ANYTHING and your God®™ will expand to fill ANY and ALL holes in your logic, understanding, anything at all!

Contains traces of nuts

Keep away from children

 

[Olowkow]

God®™ is the most fantastic invention, ever!

Easy to use and available in a wide variety of sizes and flavours to suit all budgets

Simply apply to ANYTHING and your God®™ will expand to fill ANY and ALL holes in your logic, understanding, anything at all!

Contains traces of nuts

Keep away from children

And comes with a lifetime guarantee! Sorry no refunds. Results may vary.

 

[Mashuna]

In your experience.
People who have experienced infinity would beg to differ.

Do you know anyone who has experienced infinity? What do they do after they've experienced it? In fact, how can there be an after for them?

You are making a faith-based assumption that infinity can only apply in the world of mathematics. Why should this be so? Why do mathematicians get a free pass here, yet theologians/philosophers are for some unknown reason prohibited?
If you are willing to accept infinity in one area, why pre-decide that it cannot exist in other areas?

By 'free pass', I assume you mean rigorously defined, argued over for decades, fought against, then finally proven.

I must have missed the part where that happened for abstract concepts.

 

[Pardalis]

You're misquoting me. What I actually wrote was "outside your experience of reality".

Right, sorry about that.

There are plenty of aspects of reality which are completely mysterious, yet nonetheless factual.

Define "mysterious"?

To me, anything mysterious are just things we just don't fully know about yet, it has nothing to do with the supernatural.

Do you know anyone who has experienced infinity? What do they do after they've experienced it? In fact, how can there be an after for them?

He meant momentary infinity, duh!

 

[Tricky]

In your experience.
People who have experienced infinity would beg to differ.

You mean people who claim to have experienced infinity. People who have actually experienced infinity in a way that can be demonstrated, do not exist, regardless of how fervent their claims.

If you say that a term has no meaning in the realm of duality it does not follow that the term has no meaning in, or useful application to, the realm of non-duality.

LOL. You mean that in your magical world it means something? I'm sure it does. In my magical world I can reverse time. That's the great thing about magical worlds, you get to make your own definitions of reality.

The term "infinite love" has no solid meaning or usefulness to you simply because it currently lies outside your experience of reality to date. That is not the case for everyone. To assume so is just faith on your part.

Hardly faith. Evidence. But if you can provide concrete, objectively verifiable evidence of one infinite thing, I will be willing to reverse my position.

Here you are talking about finite love and hate. Love and hate in the world of duality.

Actually, I'm not a big fan of duality either. The only "ality" I'm into is reality. And real things have evidence.

You are making a faith-based assumption that infinity can only apply in the world of mathematics. Why should this be so? Why do mathematicians get a free pass here, yet theologians/philosophers are for some unknown reason prohibited?

Because mathematicians can show their work in an objectively verifiable way. But of course, not all math describes reality. There are even such things in math as "imaginary numbers".

This is not an "unknown reason". Mathematicians all work with the same rule book. They can't redefine infinity. They can't say the value of pi is three. Your magic world has no such constraints.

Of course hate is a force. Forces (which, remember, are completely mysterious) are not confined to physics, they also exist throughout the hierarchy of the dual world.

If you're going to use metaphors, then yes, you can say hate is a force. I can say lutefisk is a force. Neither one of us can be proved wrong because they're metaphors. Metaphors are a poor tool for defining reality.

Spiritualism is something else entirely.
Who is this "we"? What I see here a lot more than 'skeptics', is a large majority who have a strong faith in philosophical naturalism. Period.
To equate 'being skeptical', with 'believing in philosophical naturalism' is just a basic mistake.

You are right. I was incorrect to act as if I represented everyone here. In my opinion, what you were saying is spiritual gobbledygook. I could be wrong, but I think you will find that in this particular forum, that opinion will be more common than not. You are invited to test this. Many of us have spent enough time in churches and other spiritual situations to recognize the metaphorical language they use.

It is also an inaccurate and deliberately self-preening appropriation of a term that should be neutral vis-a-vis the naturalism/supernaturalism debate.
Unfortunately this is a trap that a whole bunch of people, who should know better, fall into again and again.

I do not believe you can define "infinite love" in any meaningful way, one that can be used by philosophers without ambiguity. You cannot simply make words mean anything you like. This is a trap that amateur philosophers fall into again and again.

 

[Tricky]

God®™ is the most fantastic invention, ever!

Easy to use and available in a wide variety of sizes and flavours to suit all budgets

Simply apply to ANYTHING and your God®™ will expand to fill ANY and ALL holes in your logic, understanding, anything at all!

Contains traces of nuts

Keep away from children

LOL. Nominated!