Definition of "god"?

[plumjam]

The opposite of hate is also indifference.

how?

If I had to ascribe an opposite to indifference I would say "concern".
That could be a loving concern or a hateful concern.

 

[Hokulele]

how?

If I had to ascribe an opposite to indifference I would say "concern".
That could be a loving concern or a hateful concern.

Exactly. This is why the snips I highlighted are contradictory. Love and hate, regardless of the specifics of your definition, require interest, concern, attention, etc. By requiring that your god be capable of any kind of attention, especially if you are further requiring that attention to be infinite, you have brought it into the realm of dualism.

In other words, your definition prevents your god from being indifferent. Once there is something your god cannot be or cannot do, voila, it is dualistic.

 

[articulett]

how?

If I had to ascribe an opposite to indifference I would say "concern".
That could be a loving concern or a hateful concern.

Hate like love is a strong emotion... indifference is just indifference.

The stuff that you are indifferent about cannot move you like the stuff that you are passionate about... whether that passion involves hate, love, some combination of the two, or other emotions entirely.

A non-believer is not inspired by their non belief any more than you are inspired by your non-belief in Scientology or non-love of Polka dancing. It's the stuff you feel something about that inspires actions.

ETA: oh, and what Hokulele said too.

 

[Paulhoff]

Look up virtual photons plumjam.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Yeah, it makes sense. Making sense is something that is produced by or perceived by intelligence.

Good, now explain how the overall power remains the same as the distance increases from the source.

Paul

 

[plumjam]

Exactly. This is why the snips I highlighted are contradictory.

I refer you to my original response, which pointed out your confusion of the dual and non-dual realm.

Love and hate, regardless of the specifics of your definition, require interest, concern, attention, etc. By requiring that your god be capable of any kind of attention, especially if you are further requiring that attention to be infinite, you have brought it into the realm of dualism.

I'm not sure where you got the part "your god be capable of any kind of attention". There's none of that in either the Meher Baba quotes, or anything I've said.
This thread is about a definition of God. In other words, God's nature.
You trying to bring in God's attention towards humanity is changing the topic to one of God's relation to mankind. Which is something else.

In other words, your definition prevents your god from being indifferent. Once there is something your god cannot be or cannot do, voila, it is dualistic.

Again, this is on God's relationship to the dualistic creation; a different topic.
I'd be happy to discuss that, but it probably requires another thread.

 

[plumjam]

Look up virtual photons plumjam.

Paul

Good, now explain how the overall power remains the same as the distance increases from the source.

Paul

Paul, unlike God's creation you aren't making much sense (at least to me) at the moment.
On your second point, power of what, distance to or from what, source of what?...etc.. (Remember, it's me who is arguing that these laws are wholly mysterious, not you)

 

[maxfrost]

As I said right at the start for "infinite love" to be meaningful via communication, the phrase would have to be passed between two consciousnesses who had individually experienced it.

So, only delusional people who share the same delusions would be able to have meaningful communication? Okay, fair enough.

 

[paximperium]

Paul, unlike God's creation you aren't making much sense (at least to me) at the moment.
On your second point, power of what, distance to or from what, source of what?...etc.. (Remember, it's me who is arguing that these laws are wholly mysterious, not you)

Yawn...perhaps you could at least try to be pseudo-educated on things you are arguing against? Man, you are worst that a Creationists...oh wait...nevermind.

Virtual Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photon

 

[Hokulele]

I refer you to my original response, which pointed out your confusion of the dual and non-dual realm.

And having two "different" realms is, again, dualistic. Your god belonging to one and not the other is, again, dualistic.

 

[MattusMaximus]

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

So how exactly does one go about "experiencing infinity"? I find it hard to believe that finite beings with finite methods of interacting with the universe around them can even fathom infinity, let alone experience it - whatever that means.

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.

True, many present on these boards are philosophical naturalists, but not all. Even though I am a philosophical naturalist, I agree with your assertions that "being skeptical" doesn't necessarily equate with adhering to philosophical naturalism. I've known many religious people who are, on balance, way more skeptical than some atheists I've met.

As for the second part of your statement, are you saying that skepticism has no place in testing supernatural claims? Am I reading this right or am I off the mark?

 

[plumjam]

So, only delusional people who share the same delusions would be able to have meaningful communication? Okay, fair enough.

Exactly. Just in the same way that you and I are sharing a similar delusion about the existence of a chair.

 

[plumjam]

And having two "different" realms is, again, dualistic. Your god belonging to one and not the other is, again, dualistic.

Which is why, Meher Baba, in the first quote, made it clear that the relational dualistic realm is ultimately unreal; being a product of partial knowledge (ignorance).. in other words illusory. See the concept of Maya in Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[plumjam]

Yawn...perhaps you could at least try to be pseudo-educated on things you are arguing against? Man, you are worst that a Creationists...oh wait...nevermind.

Virtual Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photon

You may like to recall that the subject of this thread is the definition of God. If someone wants to introduce "virtual photons" into the discussion, that's their prerogative, but I fail to see what it adds to the discussion.
Whether virtual photons exist or not, they are still organized creations..whether of the mind of God, or the imagination of man. Both of which will add strength to my case.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You keep making these basic philosophical errors. By "objectively verifiable" what you are meaning is (correct me if I'm wrong) "communicable via the 5 senses". Unless you can enlighten me as to how infinity could be communicated via the eye, nose, ear, tongue, or skin then I just have to conclude that you're hopelessly confused on this one.
That's no crime, most materialists here are too.

Okaaaay... so you are claiming that there are more than 5 senses? You seem to be claiming the existence of at least a 6th sense that would allow one to "communicate with infinity"? Is this an accurate summary of what you've written here and below?

I would agree to a point. Your problem is that you are only willing to accept a particular type of evidence.. i.e. that which is communicable via the 5 senses. For you, it seems, the fact that some forms of truth are not amenable to communication via the senses, means that you feel within your rights to dismiss these truths out of hand.
But this is not a position that can be seriously held for long, if you really think about it. Because then you would be forced to dismiss the truths of logic, mathematics, morality, and aesthetics.

I can understand the concept of "truth" in logic and mathematics, but only up until a point. The traditional Greek concept of truth in mathematics harkens back to Euclidean geometry, which could be used through logic to argue basic truths about reality as it was understood. Many natural philosophers and mathematicians believed that by proving something as "true" using logic and mathematics, then it was indeed "true" in the real world. This was a prevailing view until the advent of non-Euclidean geometry in the 19th century, whereupon the entire notion of "truth" in mathematics was turned upon its head. After that, no one could merely point to a proof and state, unequivocally, "This is true" - they had to subject it to some form of experimental verification.

As for "truth" in morality and aesthetics, how do you define such things?

Some people (I'd guess at least 95% of the population, including me) can look at a mathematical proof, and not make head nor tail of it. The people who claim to be able to make head or tail of it are people who have devoted years of their lives in training in order to develop the mathematical perception of their individual consciousnesses. The claims of these mathematicians gain or lose validity only when compared with the individual mathematical perceptions of others of their ilk.

Proofs by mathematics alone can be wrong. See my previous points about Euclidean geometry above.

So it is not "showing their work in an objectively verifiable way", it is showing their work to a highly specialised group of trained people who test what is offered against a particular aspect of their individual consciousnesses.
You might train yourself as a mathematician because you believe that maths has something valid and interesting to say about reality, and thus you'd probably learn something.

But, due to your insistence on demonstrability via the senses, in this lifetime you'll probably never take any steps to train yourself spiritually. Thus you have shut off a whole area of human experience, which is a shame, really.

Again, I'd be interested in knowing, from your point of view, exactly what these supposed "extra spiritual senses" are. Can you at least provide some kind of meaningful definition from which to proceed? If not, you're going to find yourself open to charges of word-smithing.

My magic world has many constraints. For example, egotism/selfishness will never ever lead to spiritual progress. Other examples: identification with the body/mind has to be left behind for progress... the more you want the less happy you will be.... desire lies at the root of a restless mind.... treating people as means rather than ends will backfire on you, via the moral law of karma, .. etc.. etc..
Spiritual teachers work with similar rules in the great traditions.

What is your definition of "mind"?

The difference is that neither you nor I have personal experience of lutefisk as a force. Yet you, I, and the rest of humanity all have personal experience of hate as a force.
That is why 'hate' is a commonly understood concept, whereas 'lutefisk' is not.

I wouldn't call "hate" a force - more like an emotion. I would suggest attempting to stick with common language, otherwise we can get totally derailed by semantic arguments.

But I'm not so arrogant to assume that the limits of my individual experiences to date circumscribe the limits of all of human experience. I have studied quite a bit the lives and teachings of many individuals who claim to have experienced this. Their lives are exemplary, and their teachings are insightful, internally rational, enlightening, and inspirational.
You have one kind of faith, I have another. That's all it is.

But you do claim to have knowledge of how to "experience the infinite" - that alone seems to be somewhat arrogant. How's about backing up the claim with some answers to the questions posed here?

 

[articulett]

So, only delusional people who share the same delusions would be able to have meaningful communication? Okay, fair enough.

Only those who have caught a similar glimpse of the Emperor's new clothes can discuss how fine the fabrics are.

 

[Mobyseven]

Exactly. Just in the same way that you and I are sharing a similar delusion about the existence of a chair.

What chair?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Haha. Not mysterious?
Maybe then, you'd like to explain to us how forces came into existence, how they work.. e.g. how does gravity work at a distance (supposedly instantaneously.. faster than the speed of light)? What is magnetism?
Why do these forces work in the particular ways they do?
Why do many forces adhere tightly to mathematical principles such as the inverse square law?
Why, as it seems is the case, are the particular physical laws we have, incredibly finely tuned to create a stable and suitable environment for the development and sustenance of life and embodied consciousness?
If existence is just arbitrary why any laws at all?

Good luck on that

The answer to all these questions is simple: "We don't know (yet)."

Filling in these gaps in our knowledge with "god" or "the spiritual" is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, specifically god of the gaps. What happens to your god(s) when we start to fill in those gaps in our knowledge?

As for the fine-tuning argument, your claim that the universe is a place specifically made suitable for life & consciousness is very dubious. If you are right, why has life evolved (to our knowledge) in only one place? With lifeless objects far outnumbering the one planet in our solar system to harbor life, this seems to be a pretty big waste of space on God's part. And to think of it in an even larger context, just look at the vacuum of space - which is the vast majority of our universe - see any life there?

For more information on the claims of fine-tuning, check this out...

 

[plumjam]

So how exactly does one go about "experiencing infinity"? I find it hard to believe that finite beings with finite methods of interacting with the universe around them can even fathom infinity, let alone experience it - whatever that means.

HEY! Finally we have a very good question asked here at JREF
Well, there are various ways to do it (needless to say I haven't accomplished it). What it basically boils down to is a 'de-egoing' of the individual consciousness. The reason the universe was brought into being was to effect a journey of consciousness in which the individual soul takes on embodiment in, and the resultant range of experiences of, (in order) minerals, plants, fish, birds, mammals, then human beings (at which point 100% self-consciousness is finally attained). A necessary part of this process was the creation of egoic consciousness (in order to organize experience into some kind of coherent whole in order to facilitate analysis, prediction, rationality, and consciously guided behaviour). Though this was a necessary part of the evolution of 100% consciousness, spiritually it represents an obstacle that has to be surmounted.
In other words, the persistence of the ego traps consciousness inside a metaphorical shell. The various spiritual practices are age-old tried and tested methods to soften and then finally break this shell around egoic consciousness. At which point infinite consciousness is experienced.. in the various traditions this is described as Fana, The Beatific Vision, Theosis, Nirvana, Nirvikalpa Samadhi, God-realisation, Moksha etc..

The techniques used to effect this are (among others): selfless service to others, meditation, prayer, the various yogas, practice of humility, celibacy, vows of silence, devotion, fasting, repetition of mantras, prostration, obedience, repentence, confession, simple living etc..
All of these have the quality of the individual reducing the importance they give to their own ego-driven desires. If followed over years gradually the consciousness experienced by the individual becomes less ego-dominated.. more compassionate, loving, and blissful.
Finally it culminates in a merging of the individual consciousness with the universal consciousness.

All those millions of monks and nuns over the millenia haven't been living like that for nothing

True, many present on these boards are philosophical naturalists, but not all. Even though I am a philosophical naturalist, I agree with your assertions that "being skeptical" doesn't necessarily equate with adhering to philosophical naturalism. I've known many religious people who are, on balance, way more skeptical than some atheists I've met.

I'm glad that someone else sees this. Good on you.

As for the second part of your statement, are you saying that skepticism has no place in testing supernatural claims? Am I reading this right or am I off the mark?

I think skepticism ought to have an equal place in testing both supernatural and natural claims.
The problem is that when naturalist skeptics apply their "skepticism" to supernatural claims it often turns out not to be skepticism at all, but simple prejudice.
As a supernaturalist myself, I still test the claims of supernaturalists with my own skepticism. There are some "gurus" who I can see are blatant exploitative frauds.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul, unlike God's creation you aren't making much sense (at least to me) at the moment.
On your second point, power of what, distance to or from what, source of what?...etc.. (Remember, it's me who is arguing that these laws are wholly mysterious, not you)

Which so-called god are you talking about?

You talked about "The inverse square law", it is only mysterious because you haven't studied it. It has to do with gravity and electromagnetism, and what is so hard to understand about it. The power and/or force of them drop off to the inverse square of the distance, force and/or power are conserved.

Paul