Defining God

  • Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date
  • #106
Gasper. The universe isn't in a mythological system. It's in reality.

My statement was that God has power over all entities in that partiular mythology.

Not sure why you asked this question, or the origin of it? Perhaps explain more!

So to the rest of your comment, indeed religion is a problem, heh. Much larger than can fit onto the entire internet let alone 6 lines in a physics forum!

I think your idea of this appreciation sounds almost like pantheism. NOT the textbook definition which is biased, but the practicible definition which calls the universe God and basically gives people an emotional feeling towards it's beauty. Although defining it as God (which some in pantheism do and some don't) seems to me an inapprioriate gesture usually done to avoid the question "do you believe in god" since they could say yes...


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Do you consider the universe a "mythological creature"?

Perhaps the "problem" has been that we keep making up stories about "The Great Outsider" that is all-powerful and all-knowing rather than considering that the the Universe is a living, conscious Entity unto ITSELF...One that doesn't need to be "worshipped" (like so many of us seemed COMPELLED to do)...but only to be APPRECIATED!
 
  • #107
I get you boulder. When I see (or saw) Bush heading things and impossing so many things into the rest of the world, it reminds me of Hitler, and I see what you mean indeed.

The stock I hold in mythology is that it's just that. It was always just that, and at some point a given mythology was passed on to a generation, and the elders forgot to mention it wasn't really true.

Ever play operator? There's the cause of religion. Along of course, eventually with so MANY emotional humanitarian concepts that were bundled into each respective religion like perhaps flies collecting on a fly zapper.

Thus we have the wiry akward and unfitting religions of the world today. So large that they infact each contain their own enemy. But, for me that's a good thing!

Love this forum, been signe dup for 4 hours and already so much to talk about and listen to!
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, judging from the name you have chosen to use, I would guess that you don’t hold much stock in mythological entities. It sounds like big dog over little dog stuff (which sounds ok to me, btw) and made me think of nations for some reason (probably due to the Iraq war). It isn’t really deserving of serious consideration, however.
 
  • #108
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gasper. The universe isn't in a mythological system. It's in reality.

My statement was that God has power over all entities in that partiular mythology.

Not sure why you asked this question, or the origin of it? Perhaps explain more!

So to the rest of your comment, indeed religion is a problem, heh. Much larger than can fit onto the entire internet let alone 6 lines in a physics forum!

I think your idea of this appreciation sounds almost like pantheism. NOT the textbook definition which is biased, but the practicible definition which calls the universe God and basically gives people an emotional feeling towards it's beauty. Although defining it as God (which some in pantheism do and some don't) seems to me an inapprioriate gesture usually done to avoid the question "do you believe in god" since they could say yes...

I asked the question because your definition of "God" was that of a mythological entity with supreme powers.

My point is that we can eliminate the extraneous entity that many call "God" or "Allah" or whatever and simply focus on the Universe.

HOWEVER, I speculate that the Universe is NOT "God-like" but rather an Entity that is EVOLVING ...NOT "all-powerful" but simply "well-connected" ...and NOT "all-knowing" in that, although It may "know" what's "going on" in the moment, It does NOT know how everything will turn out.

I would be very happy to eliminate the word "God" from every conversation and just see the Universe as a living, conscious entity that's responsive to all of its parts.

As to "appreciating" it, my point really rested in the first part of the sentense...that It doesn't need to be "worshipped" in the "ooga-booga" sense of the word. But for some reason, our species can't seem to help itself from FIXATING on PERSONALITIES and coming up with RITUALS of ADULATION

In other words, we just love our "heros" and the STORIES we tell ourselves about them! Apparently (to me), it keeps MOST of "us" entertained, distracted and "saved"... from ABSTRACT THOUGHT!
 
Last edited:
  • #109
Gasper. We are along the same lines I believe.
 
  • #110
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gasper. We are along the same lines I believe.

Please note edits to my post.

Meanwhile, as a registered athiest, do you "believe" the Universe is a living (?), conscious (?) Entity (?) that responsive (?) to all of Its parts?

If not, why not?
 
  • #111
Ok gasper:

1. Universe is living = false. If you mean living in the sense that I am living.

2. Universe is conscious = false. Conscious in any sense I know of I'd say it isn't.

3. An entity? Responsive? Through physics it's responsive yes. An entity? Well, I think entity is an open term really.

I think that, this is one of those HUGE LOOKING questions that can somewhat be solves very easily.

What is the universe? Disregarding the existance of other univeres (which has been proven but let's pretend it hasn't) I assume that a pile of dirt on my table is part of the universe.

This dirt is not living, it's not conscious. Therefore the universe isn't either.

If parts of the universe are conscious, well sure they are because I AM. But, even if huge parts of it were, it wouldn't mean the universe is consciou. Just like if my arm is tanned, it doesn't mean I am tanned.

But again we have in a way, a bit of syntax.

SO, I guess you're question is one of the few things that are open as far as I can see!

Amazing, since I rarely come across logical statements that have much bouncing room for actuall belief you know?


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please note edits to my post.

Meanwhile, as a registered athiest, do you "believe" the Universe is a living (?), conscious (?) Entity (?) that responsive (?) to all of Its parts?

If not, why not?
 
  • #112
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ok gasper:

1. Universe is living = false. If you mean living in the sense that I am living.

2. Universe is conscious = false. Conscious in any sense I know of I'd say it isn't.

3. An entity? Responsive? Through physics it's responsive yes. An entity? Well, I think entity is an open term really.

I think that, this is one of those HUGE LOOKING questions that can somewhat be solves very easily.

What is the universe? Disregarding the existance of other univeres (which has been proven but let's pretend it hasn't) I assume that a pile of dirt on my table is part of the universe.

This dirt is not living, it's not conscious. Therefore the universe isn't either.

If parts of the universe are conscious, well sure they are because I AM. But, even if huge parts of it were, it wouldn't mean the universe is consciou. Just like if my arm is tanned, it doesn't mean I am tanned.

But again we have in a way, a bit of syntax.

SO, I guess you're question is one of the few things that are open as far as I can see!

Amazing, since I rarely come across logical statements that have much bouncing room for actuall belief you know?

Per the above, I don't believe we are (thinking) along the same lines, as you put it.

Also, it's GaspAr.
 
  • #113
I didn't mean about that part, I meant the other stuff.

GASPAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
  • #114
M. Gaspar
679
1
LogicalAtheist...

There are those who believe that EVERYTHING has a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including dirt, the atoms that make up the dirt, and the elementary particles that make up the atoms.

What say you on this?
 
  • #115


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There are those who believe that EVERYTHING has a "kernal" of consciousness "in" it...including dirt, the atoms that make up the dirt, and the elementary particles that make up the atoms.

What say you on this?

To that I say that the amount of evidence supporting such a claim is the same amount supporting the claim that CARL SAGAN'S DRAGON IS SITTING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

In other words, you might as well say the Earth is flat. You doing just as well.
 
  • #116
M. Gaspar
679
1


Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
To that I say that the amount of evidence supporting such a claim is the same amount supporting the claim that CARL SAGAN'S DRAGON IS SITTING IN YOUR LIVING ROOM RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!


I was wondering what that was hogging the TV!

Meanwhile, what would said "evidence" look like? An equation? A well-reasoned case? The predicted results of an experiment?

What would satisfy a logical atheist?
 
  • #117
I would say without putting days of that. For most things I, like most scientists require:

Empirical, completely documented evidence, preferably recorded if applicable and if at all applicable must be documented such that others can repeat this test independantly.

That last one is important as hell. I think basically that fits, lemme know what you think of it.
 
  • #118
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I would say without putting days of that. For most things I, like most scientists require:

Empirical, completely documented evidence, preferably recorded if applicable and if at all applicable must be documented such that others can repeat this test independantly.

That last one is important as hell. I think basically that fits, lemme know what you think of it.

The above applies only to "things" that are detectable and measureable. Consciousness: what shall we do?
 
  • #119
Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to eachother.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existance of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

DOes that make sense?
 
  • #120
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to eachother.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existance of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

DOes that make sense?


What if consciousness were NOT merely a "concept" or "state" or a nomenclature for the purpose of discussion?

What if consciousness were a form of ENERGY? Or existed as "particles of consciousness" that accrete into dynamic, coherent systems of consciousness?

What are the "identifying factors of consciousness" to which you allude?
 
  • #121
Gaspar - I have never heard consciousness described or assumed to be anything other than a state of being, or something along those lines. So with that said, and not being mean here, to me your statement sounds the same as saying "What if cows were not just an animal, but were actually a form of space nebulas which stick to the surface of the earth, and form a similiar shape to animals which justifies our mistake."

So, in other words from my POV you're taking the term "consciousness" so far outside anything I've ever heard it be, that you might as well be doing the same with a cow!

So perhaps you can bridge that gap for me?

PS: I'm enjoying speaking with you about this!
 
  • #122
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to each other.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existance of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

Does that make sense?


__________________
1. The Subjectivist Fallacy is the most common error of the human species.

2. Do not superimpose mythology onto reality.
Let me ask you something here? How is it possible to be objective "outside" of what it means to be human? How can you possibly make a claim to such a thing if in fact you were subject to the same criteria? Do you have some sort of special "knowing" that we all don't share? You can refer to all the studies and "documented proof" that you like, but where does "the witness" to that proof actually lie? Could it be the same human beings who, out of their own sense of "subjective cognizance," that set up the experiments in the first place? If so, then that would be tantamount to saying "the truth" is virtually unobtainable ... and yet, here we are trying to sort things out and make sense of it all? ... How strange?

Of course there might be one possible solution to our dilemma here, that in fact we do have a soul which, in conjunction with a Greater Entity (God), does stand outside of time and space -- i.e., in a "truly obective" sense. Or else how is it possible to be obective? And how could we even conceive of its possiblity?


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2000&perpage=15&pagenumber=1" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
Logical problem: How can order give existence to sentience, if without sentience order cannot exist? Solution: Sentience transcends time, which is absurd.
Time and space comes together in the here and now! ... And believe it or not that is transcendent!

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."

Actually... I don't think so.

Rather, it is the nature of awareness that creates time - not the reverse. The universe doesn't move around us, but we move linearly through time.
And yet the moment is. Which is existence itself. Only "the observer," which is cognizant, can recognize this.

You see this is what makes us unique.


The moment is... what?

And really... that's what makes us unique? Where did that come from?

Huh?[?]
Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist. Cognizance gives us the ability to know the truth. Cognizance belies the fact that we're awake and alive. Yet cognizance cannot be "realized" except within the moment. We can only become aware in the moment. We can only acknowledge truth in the moment. We can only know we exist in the moment. Therefore the process of knowing (and acknowlegment) "coincides" with the moment. Whereas each moment becomes a new awakening, and a new awareness to the fact that we exist (through cognizance, consciousness, awareness, etc.).

If you're still confused, just become aware of the fact that you exist "within" the moment, and realize you couldn't do so out side of it.
Perhaps I could have been a little more clear in my explanation here, but I think you'll catch my drift ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gaspar - I have never heard consciousness described or assumed to be anything other than a state of being, or something along those lines. So with that said, and not being mean here, to me your statement sounds the same as saying "What if cows were not just an animal, but were actually a form of space nebulas which stick to the surface of the earth, and form a similiar shape to animals which justifies our mistake."

So, in other words from my POV you're taking the term "consciousness" so far outside anything I've ever heard it be, that you might as well be doing the same with a cow!

So perhaps you can bridge that gap for me?

PS: I'm enjoying speaking with you about this!

Might not someone -- with certain insights -- propose that cows are actually a form of space nebula...then make a case that supports the proposal?

And if the case made (1) suggests "answers" to certain cosmological questions, and (2) leads others to think about the possibility, and (3) compels still others to seek ways to "test" the proposition, and (4) if said tests yeild convincing results...might it not be worthwhile to look at cows in a whole new way?

What's your take on experiments investigating the influence of intention on random events?

And, if "mind" could effect "matter"...what might THAT suggest with regard to any "interconnecting medium" between ALL "THINGS"...and the POSSIBILITY that the Universe is a conscious Entity that's responsive to all of It's parts?
 
Last edited:
  • #124
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Let me ask you something here? How is it possible to be objective "outside" of what it means to be human? How can you possibly make a claim to such a thing if in fact you were subject to the same criteria? Do you have some sort of special "knowing" that we all don't share? You can refer to all the studies and "documented proof" that you like, but where does "the witness" to that proof actually lie?

Of course there might be one possible solution to our dilemma here, that in fact we do have a soul which, in conjunction with a Greater Entity (God), does stand outside of time and space -- i.e., in a "truly obective" sense. Or else how is it possible to be obective? And how could we even conceive of its possiblity?


What I am proposing, Iacchus, is that there is NOT a "Greater Entity (God)...that stands outside of time and space...but that the Universe ITSELF is an Eternal Entity of Energy that's Evolving...which E-liminates the need for a "Creator" or for a "Great Ringmaster in the Sky".
 
Last edited:
  • #125
Might not someone -- with certain insights -- propose that cows are actually a form of space nebula...then make a case that supports the proposal?
Of course, they do it every day. But how should we reconcile the differences between those who reject the supports presented as inconclusive or even false, and those who insist they must be true?

Whether it divorces itself from ‘Truth’ or not, there is also a practical side of this which states that if it dependable and reliably presents itself as cow, indeed if it looks and acts and smells and tastes just like a cow, then isn’t that close enough??

Or, to read a story;

"Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So, they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener.... So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol it with bloodhounds... But no shrieks even suggest that some intruder intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"
[Anthony Flew]
 
  • #126
Boulder - the ol' Dragon in the Garage as Carl sagan put it.

As I said in a previous post. I generally require empirical recorded evidence that can be retested etc etc......
 
  • #127
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I am proposing, Iacchus, is that there is NOT a "Greater Entity (God)...that stands outside of time and space...but that the Universe ITSELF is an Eternal Entity of Energy that's Evolving...which E-liminates the need for a "Creator" or for a "Great Ringmaster in the Sky".
I understand that. This is just not what I've come to accept. Sorry. And what do you mean by standing outside of time and space? The fact that there is no spiritual dimension? For as I understand the notion of time and space does not exist here, but rather "changes in state." Where something may appear "immediate" due to its instensity, and further away to the degree that it's unrelated. Where those who are in "similar states" are close, and those who are in dissimilar states are further away.

Clearly this can be construed as something that exists outside of time and space couldn't it? And if spirits can do this, why couldn't the same thing apply to a "God" that exists within the same realm?

I also have a problem with some of your references, like the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky," which makes it sound like a big joke, and difficult to reply to your posts.
 
  • #128
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I understand that. This is just not what I've come to accept. Sorry. And what do you mean by standing outside of time and space? The fact that there is no spiritual dimension? For as I understand the notion of time and space does not exist here, but rather "changes in state." Where something may appear "immediate" due to its instensity, and further away to the degree that it's unrelated. Where those who are in "similar states" are close, and those who are in dissimilar states are further away.

Clearly this can be construed as something that exists outside of time and space couldn't it? And if spirits can do this, why couldn't the same thing apply to a "God" that exists within the same realm?

I also have a problem with some of your references, like the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky," which makes it sound like a big joke, and difficult to reply to your posts.

First of all, it is not MY notion that "God" exists "outside of time and space." This was YOUR phraseology from a prior post which I was DISPUTING!

It is becoming clear to me that, once a person is "hooked" on the idea that "God" is an entity OUTSIDE of the Universe, they find it close to impossible to even consider another paradigm.

Thus, my proposal that "The Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts" falls on deaf ears...to materialists and idealists alike.

Still, I maintain, that if this Entity (the Universe), is truly ETERNAL, then no outside "Creator" would be required. (Otherwise, why aren't we asking "Who created God?")

Now let me be VERY CLEAR: I am NOT saying that the Universe is "God". I am saying that the concept of "God" is EXTRANEOUS to the equation. And that the Universe is a BEING that's EVOLVING with and through Everything It gives rise to via natural processes.

As to my reference to the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky"...forgive me, as I was indulging my distain for the view that some "Great Outsider" is "running the show" by whim or wisdom.

I believe that NATURAL FORCES "run the show"...and that INTENTION may be one of those forces...with a sort of "gravity" of its own.
 
Last edited:
  • #129
Let me end this:

A respective God is a character of a respective mythology.

That is the only definition of God that has any evidence whatsoever.

You can call God what you will, but that's the only REALISTIC conclusion.

I cannot understand why people believe otherwise. And no, you cannot "think" otherwise, because there's no logical thought process which would bring you to another conlusion.
 
  • #130
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Of course, they do it every day. But how should we reconcile the differences between those who reject the supports presented as inconclusive or even false, and those who insist they must be true?

Whether it divorces itself from ‘Truth’ or not, there is also a practical side of this which states that if it dependable and reliably presents itself as cow, indeed if it looks and acts and smells and tastes just like a cow, then isn’t that close enough??

Or, to read a story;

"Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So, they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener.... So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol it with bloodhounds... But no shrieks even suggest that some intruder intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"
[Anthony Flew]


What I am saying is the THE WIRE MOVES and the BLOODHOUNDS CRY!!!

If the Universe is conscious -- not just "parts" of It, but the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious ENTITY -- this will only be "proved" by observing (and measuring?) EFFECTS.

Now I am at the VERY BEGINNING of thinking about what EFFECTS we might be able to chart to "prove" that the Universe is conscious and responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, I cannot point to any "evidence" at the moment. But I'm working on it.

Meanwhile, I am NOT "insisting" my proposal "must be true"...as you put it. I am simply saying that a "thing" may present like a cow...and may, in fact, BE a cow...but that we may NOT BE FULLY AWARE of all that "a cow" may be.

And while I DO see the difficulty in giving serious consideration to every hair-brained theory about "cows" -- especially given that many on our planet believe that cows house the spirits of their ancesters -- there may be those who resonate with a novel speculation and offer suggestions on how it might be "proved".
 
  • #131
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Let me end this:

A respective God is a character of a respective mythology.

That is the only definition of God that has any evidence whatsoever.

You can call God what you will, but that's the only REALISTIC conclusion.

I cannot understand why people believe otherwise. And no, you cannot "think" otherwise, because there's no logical thought process which would bring you to another conlusion.

I know the above is not meant for me, because I have NOT been making a case for the existence of "God". Quite the opposite.

I "believe" in the existence of the Universe. Don't you?

The question is: what characteristics might the Universe have that have not, as yet, been detected...or conjectured?

That's the game I'm in...if it's OK with you.

THE END?
 
  • #132
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
First of all, it is not MY notion that "God" exists "outside of time and space." This was YOUR phraseology from a prior post which I was DISPUTING!
Pehaps the part about time and space (I guess?), but gathered from some of your posts to others, when you refer to the "Great Outsider," I assumed it was just a general "come on."


It is becoming clear to me that, once a person is "hooked" on the idea that "God" is an entity OUTSIDE of the Universe, they find it close to impossible to even consider another paradigm.
When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.


Thus, my proposal that "The Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts" falls on deaf ears...to materialists and idealists alike.
I think it could be, if you want to consider what you're talking about "is" God. And yet, to describe who that God is and what it entails, is an entirely different story? ... I don't claim to have all the answers here.


Still, I maintain, that if this Entity (the Universe), is truly ETERNAL, then no outside "Creator" would be required. (Otherwise, why aren't we asking "Who created God?")
Although I am not a church going person (to say the least), I have read the Bible and I do deem it a credible resource, especially the New Testament.


Now let me be VERY CLEAR: I am NOT saying that the Universe is "God". I am saying that the concept of "God" is EXTRANEOUS to the equation. And that the Universe is a BEING that's EVOLVING with and through Everything It gives rise to via natural processes.
However you wish to describe God, He is not extraneous to our existence, Period.


As to my reference to the "Great Ringmaster in the Sky"...forgive me, as I was indulging my distain for the view that some "Great Outsider" is "running the show" by whim or wisdom.
Without God we would have no standards, so yes, He does exist, and yes, He is running the show.


I believe that NATURAL FORCES "run the show"...and that INTENTION may be one of those forces...with a sort of "gravity" of its own.
The material universe is only "the form," of which the spiritual universe is "the essence," meaning there is a distinction to be made, because the two are not on the "same plane" of existence ...
 
  • #133
Iacchus said:

"When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist."


Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit.
 
  • #134
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Behold the Spirit

M. Gaspar:

To clarify my views on God a bit, I think they're closer to the excerpt below, which describes God more in terms of being "neutral" but nonetheless effective. I also see how it could apply just as easily to your views, as well as to mine ...


Excerpt from Behold the Spirit, by Alan Watts ...

Philosophically, we do not think of God as having the peculiar personal characteristics of a tribal patriarch, nor yet of an Oriental despot of uncertain temper and undoubted power, whose every whim is law and before whom all must grovel in the dust. Even when this awesome creature is endowed with a sense of perfect justice and mercy, he does not fit our philosophic conception, because he is still very much of a man -- ridiculous in that he takes himself too seriously. Nearer to our intellectual idea of God is the type of emperor envisaged by Lao-tzu, who advised the would-be ruler to be like the Tao, governing his sujects without letting them know that they were being governed ...

The great Tao pervades everywhere, both on the left and on the right.

By it all things come into being, and it does not reject them. Merits accomplished, it does not possess them (or, lay claim to them).

It loves and nourishes all things but does not dominate over them....

Because it never assumes greatness, therefore it can accomplish greatness.

Therefore the Sage (as ruler), in order to be above the people, must in words keep below them;

In order to be ahead of the people, he must in person keep behind them.

Thus when he is above, the people do not feel his burden; When he is ahead, the people do not feel his hindrance. Therefore all the world is pleased to hold him in high esteem and never get tired of him.

Because he does not compete, no one competes with him.
 
  • #135
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Iacchus said:

"When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist."


Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit.
Now now! You musn't let your feelings get in the way. Oh the disdain! ... Oh the disdain!
 
  • #136
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What I am saying is the THE WIRE MOVES and the BLOODHOUNDS CRY!!!

If the Universe is conscious -- not just "parts" of It, but the Universe ITSELF is a living, conscious ENTITY -- this will only be "proved" by observing (and measuring?) EFFECTS.

Now I am at the VERY BEGINNING of thinking about what EFFECTS we might be able to chart to "prove" that the Universe is conscious and responsive to all of Its parts. Thus, I cannot point to any "evidence" at the moment. But I'm working on it.

Meanwhile, I am NOT "insisting" my proposal "must be true"...as you put it. I am simply saying that a "thing" may present like a cow...and may, in fact, BE a cow...but that we may NOT BE FULLY AWARE of all that "a cow" may be.

And while I DO see the difficulty in giving serious consideration to every hair-brained theory about "cows" -- especially given that many on our planet believe that cows house the spirits of their ancesters -- there may be those who resonate with a novel speculation and offer suggestions on how it might be "proved".
I thought you had enabled some function on your PF control panel to cause all BoulderHead posts to not appear on your monitor??
If we are still on speaking terms let me think about what you have said and I will get back to you with what I hope will seem to you as an intelligent reply.
 
  • #137
PS: That's a joke for those unsure.

Boulder, you aren't religious are you? If you are, you better watch it cuzz I'll rip your faith apart faster than sinead o-conner can rip up the pope on SNL, hahahaha!!!
 
  • #138
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Pehaps the part about time and space (I guess?), but gathered from some of your posts to others, when you refer to the "Great Outsider," I assumed it was just a general "come on."


When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist.


I think it could be, if you want to consider what you're talking about "is" God. And yet, to describe who that God is and what it entails, is an entirely different story? ... I don't claim to have all the answers here.


Although I am not a church going person (to say the least), I have read the Bible and I do deem it a credible resource, especially the New Testament.


However you wish to describe God, He is not extraneous to our existence, Period.


Without God we would have no standards, so yes, He does exist, and yes, He is running the show.


The material universe is only "the form," of which the spiritual universe is "the essence," meaning there is a distinction to be made, because the two are not on the "same plane" of existence ...

How might the term "Great Outsider" be a "come on"?? The term is simply my way of characterizing the paradigm where "God" reigns OUTSIDE the Universe...and is It's "Creator".

For me this view of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity that exists OUTSIDE the Universe is much like the view that some hold that the Great Pyramids were built by aliens !

Let's give the Universe It's props!!!

And my saying that "God" is EXTRANEOUS to the equation does not preclude the Universe ITSELF from having "standards of behavior" toward which It is EVOLVING...with and through beings such as us.

For instance, if "cooperation" is a more effective way of being than, say, "reflexive thwarting"...then "cooperation" would be a "higher" mode of behavior according to what might be called the "spiritual realm" of the Universe.

My proposal suggests that EVERY coherent system -- from elementary particles to galaxies -- that each coherent system has the elements of physicality, consciousness and spirit "in" it. Thus, an EXTERNAL SPIRIT is unnecessary.

Anything does NOT go. This is a Cause & Effect Universe...on the physical plane ...on the mental plane ...and on the spiritual plane. Everything we do counts. Everything we DON'T do counts!! Through the NATURAL FORCES of the Universe, every ACTION (and non-action) has consequences. Over time, we (and other sentient beings) learn not to put our hands in the fire ...nor "evil" do.

The Universe is not "running the show". It is EXPERIENCING the show!!!

I believe that, in each incarnation of the Universe, NATURAL FORCES cause baryonic matter to condense out of the primal energy, thereby, in each incarnation, preparing a "stage" upon which EVOLVING SPIRITS can feel, think, act and learn.

Our mental/spiritual evolution is "merely" PART of the mental/spiritual evolution of the Universe.

And see? No "God" need apply.
 
  • #139
GASPAR - I got a sad experiment for you.

(don't take this to literally)

Take a big peice of wood. a tall and wide one, ten feet tall, 5 feet wide. you stand on one side, and set a microphone on the other. Also, on the side of the mic, put a speaker. Set the speaker to say outloud iacchus'es POV.
You stand on your side and say your point of view.

Once done, stop the recording and listen to what was heard on the mic side.

You'll hear nothing but iacchus's rambling.

You take your stab at what the wood represents. emotionality, stuborn idiocy, anumber of things.

That's the saddest experiment. You could put the truth on one side, and perhaps 5 billion people of earth on the other, and they'd hear nothing but the sound of their own voice.
 
  • #140
M. Gaspar
679
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Iacchus said:

"When you consider the Universe without a God, then basically what you're saying is that mankind is here to serve his own whims and, that anything goes. Which is entirely untrue. Or from whence do we get our standards? And please don't tell me they don't exist."


Heh, oh man. I think you're in the pits, and headed for even lower pits. What you said there is terribly sad. Boulder, I think it'd be good NOT to discuss with Iacchus. We both see the strange an sick emotionality causing him to say such awfully disturbing ideas, and yet he doesn't notice it.

It's like someone who is extremely drunk, they don't know that they look so drunk, they feel "normal". And yet, we all see it so obviously. It's scares me a bit.

Does the above not seem a bit unkind toward Iacchus...his being "in the pits" etc? These are YOUR words, are they not...and what does Boulder have to do with them?

Anyway, I've lost interest in "protecting" Iacchus...having come to the conclusion (in the last 10 minutes) that we can EACH take care of OURSELVES!!

More on next post...after capturing more gems from YOU.
 

Suggested for: Defining God

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
68
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
News Bush & God
  • Last Post
3
Replies
85
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top