Defining God

[Diogenes]

It is time that atheists get over this primitive understanding of God.

'Swami' attempts to turn the table and blame atheists, who believe in no gods, for rejecting some sort of 'primitive' definition of God. This raises questions:

Please define "primitive understanding of God."
In the alternative, perhaps Swami' could suggest his own "understanding of God."

Atheists as well as many theists reject 'primitive' definitions of gods. Atheists reject ALL gods. Perhaps Swami' or others can suggest a 'sophisticated' definition of a god. Then we can let atheists speak for themselves about whether they reject such a 'god.'

[sridatta]

It is time that atheists get over this primitive understanding of God.

'Swami' attempts to turn the table and blame atheists, who believe in no gods, for rejecting some sort of 'primitive' definition of God. This raises questions:

Please define "primitive understanding of God."
In the alternative, perhaps Swami' could suggest his own "understanding of God."

Atheists as well as many theists reject 'primitive' definitions of gods. Atheists reject ALL gods. Perhaps Swami' or others can suggest a 'sophisticated' definition of a god. Then we can let atheists speak for themselves about whether they reject such a 'god.'

In the West, many view God as a White male living in the sky.

In my worldview, God is fundamental reality. It is part of everything. To date, scientists will tell you the samething but they choose to label it materialism instead of God.

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/geng ... -body.html

The view that only the material world (matter) is truly real, and that all processes and realities observed in the universe can be explained by reducing them down to their most basic scientific components, e.g., atoms, molecules, and everything else thought to make up what we know as "matter."

The basic idea of fundamental reality is the same, but the conclusion of this reality being "matter" is a huge error. It is backwards. How can you explain the existence of matter without first explaining the tool that you use to make all of your observations? Thousands of years ago, the mystics examined this tool that we use to experience, and it led them to realize fundamental reality. This is God.

Shankara established the fundamental concept in the spiritual knowledge according to which God is the absolute reality and the creation is relatively real. If you analyze the present science deeply, this can be well appreciated. Science says that matter is a form of energy. Matter and energy are the simultaneous concept and both are inter-convertible. Einstein says that matter and space are similar simultaneous concepts. He says that there is no absolute space without referring the matter since geometrical space only exists. The bending of space around boundary of matter indicates that space is not nothing but has physical status.

Thus, energy and matter are similar to matter and space in the simultaneous existence. Therefore, space and energy must have similar relationship. The generation of galaxies from space indicates the inter conversion of space into energy and matter. All this concludes that space, energy and matter are mutually existing and are simultaneous inter-convertible concepts like the sides of a coin. The forms that are converting between themselves must be relatively real.

The absolute basic form must be always one without any conversion. This can be clear by an example. You have seen a rope in mild darkness. The existence of rope is clear to you but not the form of the rope. The superimposed forms like snake, stick and garland appear but their existence is the same existence of rope. Therefore, the three superimpositions appear as if they really exist. These superimpositions will be converting in to each other because you will be seeing the snake for some time, the stick for some time and garland for some time.

Once the light is put on, the absolute reality, the rope, appears. This rope will never be converted into any of these relative forms (snake, stick and garland). Therefore, the right conclusion is that the absolute reality is never converted into another form and the inter-convertible forms are always relatively real. Based on this example, space, energy and matter are relatively real, which are inter-convertible between themselves. Absolute reality is God and cannot be converted into any other form with reference to the realisation of rope. The rope is never seen as long as the relative forms exist. Therefore, God can never be imagined as long as space, energy and matter (Creation) exist. Therefore, God is unimaginable.

You are a part and parcel of creation and you will disappear along with the disappearance of creation. Therefore, for you creation can never be unreal. It is unreal only for the God. But Shankara gave a twist here to purify minds of atheists. He said that the world is unreal. They atheists took that the world is unreal for them. Shankara kept silent because such misunderstanding is going to do good for the atheists. Due to unreality of the world, one will reduce the influence of family bonds, which are supposed to be unreal.

This will minimise selfishness and mind is purified, which is required for the devotion to God. Thus, Shankara converted atheists in to theists by saying that they are God. Then they purified their minds by taking the world as unreal for them. The theist with pure mind is eligible to become a good devotee. Then He introduced the Lord for worship with devotion in order to become God practically. Who can handle this situation, with such efficiency except the human incarnation of God?

[TRANSPONDER]

Normally I would leave Swami Sridatta to posts his stuff on how to turn Christianity into Hinduism, and let the Christians deal with that, but now he (she? One never knows, on the former board, we had a Hindu parachute in on the Secularist dominated 'general discussion' forum and it turned out to be a female) wants to have a bash (and bash it is) at atheists. However it is very much in the style of Swami-Fakirism, with masses of waffle and all of it speculative, with not a scrap of evidence and all with the flaw universal to religious preaching - reversed burden of proof.

During the days of the Krishna consciousness cult you couldn't avoid ending up with their literature, and I remember one argument of the faked Swami 'Western philosophy is flawed: just because all blackbirds are black does not mean that there will not be a white blackbird. Thus, just because everyone known has died, does not mean that everyone will die'. Something like that, anyway. The old hands will recognise the black swan fallacy immediately and what the fallacy is, is 'appeal to unknowns' which is a gap for god without even the bad excuse of a problem in scientific materialism.

The logic is that until a valid documented black swan, grown missing leg, person not dying or a white blackbird sub species is validated beyond doubt, there is no logically valid reason to take any of those claims seriously. .The logic is not to take an unsupported claim as the default, but the doubt of it until proven (reasonably) as the default. That is the solid logic of the Skeptical -atheist position and the universal faithbased fallacy of all theistic (and cultic) claims, and of the conspiracy theorists, too, from election denialists to flat earthists and taking in the moon landing denialists as well.

And so this doesn't come across as closed -minded materialism, which it isn't, the black swan fallacy also implies that when black swans are found, there is no faitbased denail 'There cannot be white blackbirds, The earth is flat, there was no moon landing, he really won the election, Genesis is true... "I don't care what the evidence says". I have Faith'

Anthony Flew was convinced of Theism, though by a spurious pseudoscience ID scam, which is a warning to us all. And I have looked at the moon landing hoax arguments, but they have all been debunked (1).

I stray into byeways, friends, mainly because out pal Sridatta has nothing but preachy faithclaims. And we atheists need do nothing but dismiss it all with the logic of the burden of proof.

Now, I don't care for Christianity too much. But I rather like Hinduism. But I will not give it a scrap of rational credit even since I was flamed on the former board as a western Hinduism tourist. Very well, that is what I am. I like the pretty temples and the nice dances and I give the religious claims the credit I give our new pal's atheist bashing preachery here. Not A Scrap. And I leave it to the Christian to kick the appropriate Hinduistic ribs in.

Have a nice weekend all, I shall


(1) but one - witness analysis, which, if the moon landing no 1 is proven true, has to be discredited as a valid detection tool.

You have said that you don’t believe the theoretical spiritual knowledge in spite of its practical authentication given, through the divine miracles performed by Godmen. You may say that you have not seen a divine miracle. I can also say that I have not seen the blast of bomb or transformation of matter into energy. As you are towards spiritual knowledge so I am towards science.

But I am not such a blind conservative like you. I accept the science in theory and in practicals also as the subject of imaginable domain. The subject of unimaginable domain is spiritual knowledge.

If you say that you have majority of atheistic scientists to support your views, I have the real majority of supporters of spiritual knowledge because every true scientist believes in spiritual knowledge. Do you know that even Einstein and Newton were good scholars in spiritual knowledge? True science always believes in a practical event that happens before eyes. The perfect logic of such unimaginable event (miracle) may not be understood.

Since it is not understood, science will not say the event is false. True science accepts the happening of a practical event and keeps silent about its explanation. Science will say that the event is beyond imagination and logic. But, atheists see that an unimaginable event is always false. They neither can give the explanation nor at least accept it as unimaginable like a true scientist.

Science always keeps silent about the unimaginable domain, but never negates its existence. Atheists are emotional and loose balance of mind and even common logic by simply negating the existence of unimaginable event since everything must be imaginable to them!

It is not the business of science to negate 'spiritual' claims, but to to verify by experiment and confirmation what it can, and appeals to the unknown and undisprovable have no comparable evidential force. Miracle claims are the same in any religion - they are anecdotal and the only time I have seen them shown to the public, they turn out to be fakes, admitted as part of conjurer's entertainment or put o to deceive the too gullible...The bottom line is that if any of these miracle/supernatural claims were true we could see them demonstrated under test conditions so even the skeptics would put their hands up and say tthey were covinced. Which is how science verifies hypotheses or discards them. If an event is verified as real but is not explainable, it remains unexplained, just as instinct was until the discovery of DNA. Science is not as denialist as you pretend. it is the 'true'science you speak of. It is a flaw of theist argument that it does not appear to understand what it criticises. or likes to misrepresent it in order to make a spurious case. That will bite you in the metaphorical leg, friend, if you do that.

Neither do you make much credit for yourself in saying that you haven't seen the blast of a bomb. Are all those films of explosions fakes? Haven't you seen a firework? A bomb is he same principle. Transformation of matter into energy? What do you think fire is? If this is the best understanding of science that you have, it is not serving you well.

Aside from that, your effort to equate spiritual knowledge with scientific is not going to do you much good, one is verified by experiment and repeat, the other is speculation without a shred of decent evidence.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

[Diagoras]

In my worldview, God is fundamental reality. It is part of everything.

Would you then describe yourself as a pantheist?

[theophile]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

Philosophically pristine, but practically disappointing...

I'm not well-versed in Aquinas' Summa, so maybe he works his way around some of this, but the idea of a God who spends eternity in contemplation of God's perfect self, and is unmoved by all the mess in this world, doesn't do much to life the spirits, you know?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

Philosophically pristine, but practically disappointing...

I'm not well-versed in Aquinas' Summa, so maybe he works his way around some of this, but the idea of a God who spends eternity in contemplation of God's perfect self, and is unmoved by all the mess in this world, doesn't do much to life the spirits, you know?

Yes, this is true. But Aquinas gets us to a much more personal God, which is the whole point of the incarnation. It is a way for the transcendent to be immanent with the world. If God from his eternal act willed to incarnate as a human, then that is eternally God's knowledge. From God's point of view, it is that he always incarnated, always has a human nature, something we can relate to, for to relate to the transcendent seems impossible.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

Philosophically pristine, but practically disappointing...

I'm not well-versed in Aquinas' Summa, so maybe he works his way around some of this, but the idea of a God who spends eternity in contemplation of God's perfect self, and is unmoved by all the mess in this world, doesn't do much to life the spirits, you know?

Yes, this is true. But Aquinas gets us to a much more personal God, which is the whole point of the incarnation. It is a way for the transcendent to be immanent with the world. If God from his eternal act willed to incarnate as a human, then that is eternally God's knowledge. From God's point of view, it is that he always incarnated, always has a human nature, something we can relate to, for to relate to the transcendent seems impossible.

But the problem is that any religion can claim the same, and do; even Buddhism Really claims 'Inspiration' for God by having meditation (prayer) communicating with God (a reality beyond, though so fr as I can see it is just a mental condition). You cam make it read like it makes sense as a Strtrek enthusiast ca explain the logic behind Klingon culture, but that does not do a darn thing to make it anything more than a faithclaim based on First cause, which even though it is the best theism has, is debatable.

[theophile]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

Philosophically pristine, but practically disappointing...

I'm not well-versed in Aquinas' Summa, so maybe he works his way around some of this, but the idea of a God who spends eternity in contemplation of God's perfect self, and is unmoved by all the mess in this world, doesn't do much to life the spirits, you know?

Yes, this is true. But Aquinas gets us to a much more personal God, which is the whole point of the incarnation. It is a way for the transcendent to be immanent with the world. If God from his eternal act willed to incarnate as a human, then that is eternally God's knowledge. From God's point of view, it is that he always incarnated, always has a human nature, something we can relate to, for to relate to the transcendent seems impossible.

But that's the rub, isn't it? How can God ever incarnate as human and become relatable without admitting unactualized potential into Godself? It seems to me that unactualized potential is integral to the human experience, and so if God truly incarnated, and is relatable, then God can't be pure actuality.

That or it's only ever going to be an illusion of human being that God has, and false knowledge. Never the real deal.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

Philosophically pristine, but practically disappointing...

I'm not well-versed in Aquinas' Summa, so maybe he works his way around some of this, but the idea of a God who spends eternity in contemplation of God's perfect self, and is unmoved by all the mess in this world, doesn't do much to life the spirits, you know?

Yes, this is true. But Aquinas gets us to a much more personal God, which is the whole point of the incarnation. It is a way for the transcendent to be immanent with the world. If God from his eternal act willed to incarnate as a human, then that is eternally God's knowledge. From God's point of view, it is that he always incarnated, always has a human nature, something we can relate to, for to relate to the transcendent seems impossible.

But that's the rub, isn't it? How can God ever incarnate as human and become relatable without admitting unactualized potential into Godself? It seems to me that unactualized potential is integral to the human experience, and so if God truly incarnated, and is relatable, then God can't be pure actuality.

That or it's only ever going to be an illusion of human being that God has, and false knowledge. Never the real deal.

Because it is part of God's eternal act that he incarnated and the succession of creation is our perception, then the knowledge from the incarnation is eternally the same as God's being. If God came to do it, then God would have had the potential to do it and would not be purely actual.

This is similar to if God came to will a thing to be a certain way, such as there is the succession in God, like God in the past did not answer your prayer but he came later to answer your prayer, then there would be potentiality in God.

We believe that God answers prayers from one eternal act, so there is no succession in God. There is only a logical succession that God is knowledgeable of.

As an example, if I cut up a movie film, 24 frames(photos) per second into individual photos and spread them out randomly. I could probably reconstruct the timeline based on logical inferences and knowledge of the world and human behavior. If I always had all those individual photos in my mind I would always also possess the logical ordering of them even though they never play out in succession.

Not the best analogy but it is what I have right now, lol.

[sridatta]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

I go with Aristotle and Aquinas on this.

God = the purely actual actualizer.

We can deduce other things about God based upon this definition, such as it is unchanging because to change requires potential.

You should not blame God that He is unable to make us understand the unimaginable God. So far we are thinking that we are able to understand God after doing lot of penance. This wrong knowledge is removed by God and today, you understood that you can never understand God. This point is also supported by the absence of spatial dimensions of God.

By this, scientists need not think that the unimaginable God beyond space does not exist at all. The genuine miracles, which are unimaginable events, exhibited by unimaginable source called as God, establish the existence of unimaginable entity and it is supported by the point that such unimaginable God is beyond space being the creator of space.