Towards a Definition of God

[2ndRateMind]

So, the central contention here is that 'God is the most perfect being we can imagine, and since He is infinitely good, even better than that'.

The issue then, is not our disparate conceptions of God, which will inevitably differ according to our own capacities to imagine perfect goodness, but how to reconcile them all into something of a consensus we can all agree on, so that we are also agreed on how each individual ought progress spiritually towards that perfect goodness.

So, my question for the forum is; is perfect, infinite goodness a matter to be defined, and settled, or is it always going to be a matter to strive for and never to be reached, though the striving being a worthwhile endeavour of itself? Or, would you like to propose some other definition of God, for the purposes of discussion?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[McCulloch]

I hold that when it comes to a pantheistic view of "God" ignostics simply don't understand the basics of Pantheism.

Consistent with my claim to be ignostic, I agree fully that I do not understand pantheism. My rather shallow understanding is that pantheists believe that God is everything and everything is God. What I fail to grasp is why they would use a loaded word like God when they really mean universe. Perhaps you could help me.

Speaking of meaningful well-defined terms, what do you mean by "Perfect"?

Yes, perfect can be an ambiguous word. I was using it to mean without flaw, failing or shortcomings of any kind, as I believe many theists apply it to God.

[…] it doesn't follow from this there exists an "ego" that knows everything and can somehow act collectively on all of this knowledge simultaneously. In pantheism God has no ego.

Understood. The universe has no personality, no ego, no self. Gods on the other hand generally do have egos, personalities and will. I still don't understand why pantheists use the word God.

So to even speak of God having a "personality" in pantheism is to exhibit a total misunderstanding of pantheism entirely.

I submit that the pantheistic meaning of the word God is so far from anyone else's understanding of that word so as to invalidate using that word.

[davidsun]

I submit that the pantheistic meaning of the word God is so far from anyone else's understanding of that word so as to invalidate using that word.

Here is a link to a pdf copy of a 'pantheistic' (kind of) description of 'God' which I think might 'survive' such invalidation.

http://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7 ... of_god.pdf

Excerpted from Ch.32 of the book entitled Initiation by Elizabeth Haich

[Divine Insight]

I submit that the pantheistic meaning of the word God is so far from anyone else's understanding of that word so as to invalidate using that word.

I would agree that the term "God" especially with a capital "G" is understood in western cultures to mean an egotistical entity that is totally separate from all humans. It is also often seen as the ultimate ruler, dictator, or entity of authority that must be obeyed or at the very least "appeased" lest it will become angry with the humans who have failed to obey or appease it.

I will be the first to agree that western cultures have made a disgrace of the very concept of "God".

In pantheism the concept of "God" or even "god" with a lowercase "g" if you like is extremely different from this. Although, having said this I must confess that even some Eastern cultures have ultimately created an "egotistical Godhead" from what appear to have originally been pantheistic philosophies. Apparently humans can't seem to resist pushing their egos onto the concept of "God".

I hold that when it comes to a pantheistic view of "God" ignostics simply don't understand the basics of Pantheism.

Consistent with my claim to be ignostic, I agree fully that I do not understand pantheism. My rather shallow understanding is that pantheists believe that God is everything and everything is God. What I fail to grasp is why they would use a loaded word like God when they really mean universe. Perhaps you could help me.

I would love to be able to convey my understanding of a serious "pantheistic" philosophy that doesn't degrade into becoming about an egotistical Godhead. And try to explain how this differs from secularism.

You say, "What I fail to grasp is why they would use a loaded word like God when they really mean universe."

Well, there's a huge difference between how a pantheist thinks of the universe versus how a secularist thinks of the universe.

For a secularist the universe is just a bunch of mindless matter or material. This material just happened to be able to evolve into consciousness (basically by pure accident). Now I know you may argue that it wasn't just an accident because evolution can explain it, but what I'm saying here then is that a universe that just "accidentally" happens to be such that it can evolve into conscious beings would be the "accident". In other words, for secularists, the universe is just a materialistic "accident" of some sort that just happens to be able to evolve into sentient living creatures.

The secularists also believe that they are "unique" in having consciousness. Obviously they are not unique with respect to the rest of the animal kingdom, but they most certainly are "unique" with respect to all the rest of the universe that isn't conscious.

So for a secularist their consciousness belongs "solely to them" and when they die, their consciousness is gone and that's that. A secularist cannot become "reincarnated". In fact, this is problematic for a secularist because even if they could make a perfect copy of themselves (a perfect clone) they would then need to also confess that there now exists two separate conscious beings where previously there was only one.

Secular philosophy is far from being an "air-tight" case, or even a philosophy that doesn't have it's own serious problems.

The pantheist, on the other hand, views the "universe" as being the entity that is actually having all experiences. And the pantheist doesn't need to limit the universe to the limitation of a purely accidental material world. In fact, there's no evidence that this is what the world is like anyway. To the contrary, modern science continually finds new aspects of our "universe" that it had never imagined before. Currently we are looking at "hidden dimensions" as a possible way of explaining where the "non-material waves of potentiality" might be vibrating before they appear as something "physical".

So we hardly have a science that has demonstrated, or has even strongly suggested that we live in a simple material world that secularists seem to think exists.

In the meantime the difference between secularism and pantheism is that the conscious observer (you, me, and all living things that are having any experience at all) is a one shot deal that ceases to exist when it dies for the secularist, and was merely just one perspective of reality that had been experienced by the actual "universe" (or "God).

In other words, for a pantheist it would be impossible to cease to exist because the pantheist realizes that they are the universe that is having this experience. And therefore they will continue to have experiences forever. In fact, for the pantheist it wouldn't even matter if this particular incarnation of the "Observable Universe" was finite and ultimately had a "Heat death". That's just physics. But the pantheist realizes that our true nature is not physical at all. So even if our observable universe should be finite and eventually "wind down" because of entropy, this is not a problem for the pantheist.

In fact, many scientists are proposing (and suggesting that evidence is pointing toward) the idea that "reality" may actually exist of infinitely many different kinds of universes.

So for a pantheist, "God" is not "just this observable universe", but rather it's everything that exists, and that would include an infinity of other universes that may physically be beyond our reach.

So in a very real way, secularist are basing their philosophy are a very narrow and limited view of reality. They are are imagining that they are just basically a "freak accident" that happened one time only within this one observable universe which they believe was some sort of "material" that came out of nothing and just accidentally happened to be able to evolve into conscious beings that can have an experience.

For the pantheist the secularist view appears to be extremely limited in imagination actually.

I'm not saying that pantheism is true and secularism is false. But I will argue that at the very BEST neither of these two philosophies can lay claim to having a leg up on the other. And that makes them perfectly equal in terms of being plausible.

There is nothing in science that actually supports a "materialistic world". To the contrary materialism has become extremely illusive in modern day science. So a secularist can hardly point to science as support or evidence for secularism.

~~~~~

Having said all of the above if I were going to VOTE for a basis for human society I would vote for secularism. I don't see where a pantheistic worldview would be useful or have anything more to offer in terms of how a society should conduct themselves.

So from a political perspective I'm all for secularism. But if you want to talk about what I suspect might actually be the "True Nature of Reality", I'd have to say that pantheism actually makes more sense to me.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 12 by davidsun]

The shorter the waves in which the form of energy manifests itself the less our consciousness records a sensation of matter. To the vibrations that are transmitted directly to our consciousness by our organs of sense we give names according to the sensations we feel: matter, sound, electricity, heat, taste, smell, light. The still higher, immaterial energies and radiations, perceptible only by means of our brain and nerve centers, we call thought waves, idea waves. Beyond them there are still higher, more penetrating rays and frequencies, all the way up to the very highest all-pervading frequencies of the divine-creative power: life itself! We can only perceive these frequencies as a state of consciousness.

Amusing speculation. Science has never detected high frequency thought waves or idea waves. There is no evidence that life is a wave frequency.

[davidsun]

[Replying to post 12 by davidsun]

The shorter the waves in which the form of energy manifests itself the less our consciousness records a sensation of matter. To the vibrations that are transmitted directly to our consciousness by our organs of sense we give names according to the sensations we feel: matter, sound, electricity, heat, taste, smell, light. The still higher, immaterial energies and radiations, perceptible only by means of our brain and nerve centers, we call thought waves, idea waves. Beyond them there are still higher, more penetrating rays and frequencies, all the way up to the very highest all-pervading frequencies of the divine-creative power: life itself! We can only perceive these frequencies as a state of consciousness.

Amusing speculation. Science has never detected high frequency thought waves or idea waves. There is no evidence that life is a wave frequency.

Smug (self-assuredly condescending) expression of 'amusement' noted.

I agree - in this case 'wave' frequencies, I think, are better regarded as metaphors. The 'science' you speak of is basically materialistic - matter and matter-energy being 'dense' manifestations of spirit, IMO. If you want evidence of non-material or non-matter-energial phenomena of the kind referenced, I suggest you turn your attention to studies and results presented in the field of the 'science' of consciousness.

There's lots of it available here:

http://www.noetic.org/

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 15 by davidsun]

Real scientists when they talk about high frequencies mean high frequencies. If it is a metaphor, then a metaphor for what? I would like to debate whether Noetics is science.

ref:Is Noetics Science?

[davidsun]

[Replying to post 15 by davidsun]

Real scientists when they talk about high frequencies mean high frequencies. If it is a metaphor, then a metaphor for what? I would like to debate whether Noetics is science.

ref:Is Noetics Science?

I am with you on "Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." Thanks for the invite, but I am not interested in win-or-lose debating (per se). Sharing and considering contrasting perspectives on what is for fun and possible expansion of consciousness is something I enjoy, however.

Re 'metaphor': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

Also (from Merriam Webster's): Definition of metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy.

You've heard "As above, so below", I assume? The way I 'see' things, everything in what the people you 'see' as 'real' scientists 'see' in what you and they consider to be the 'real' world is a 'metaphor' for the what's 'real' in the unseen spiritual world.

One man's 'reality' is another man's 'illusion', aye what McCulloch? This works both ways.

From Ch.15 of The Bhagavad Gita:

"This phenomenal creation, which is both ephemeral and eternal, is like a tree, but having its seed above in the Highest and its ramifications on this earth below. The scriptures are its leaves, and he who understands this, knows.
Its branches shoot upwards and downwards, deriving their nourishment from the Qualities; its buds are the objects of sense; and its roots, which follow the Law causing man’s regeneration and degeneration, pierce downwards into the soil.
In this world its true form is not known, neither its origin nor its end, and its strength is not understood, until the tree with its roots striking deep into the earth is hewn down by the sharp axe of non-attachment.
Beyond lies the Path, ... This is the Primal God from whence this ancient creation has sprung."

[McCulloch]

I would like to debate whether Noetics is science.

ref:Is Noetics Science?

I am with you on "Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." Thanks for the invite, but I am not interested in win-or-lose debating (per se). Sharing and considering contrasting perspectives on what is for fun and possible expansion of consciousness is something I enjoy, however.

There is no lose in debate. If I win, I get the smug satisfaction of confirming that my view of the world is correct and trouncing the opponents. It is even better if I am bested in debate. Then I get the opportunity to improve my understanding of the world. But the best outcome of debate is a kind of Hegelian synthesis of views.

This is a debating site; you might have determined that from the URL. In debate, you have made claims about the nature of Noetics. Those claims have been challenged. Both recently and back in 2014 ref:What about noetics? You may either defend your claims or withdraw them. As it is, the debate has started without you. Noetics has been described as woo and pseudoscience. So far, I tend to agree with that assessment.

You've heard "As above, so below", I assume? The way I 'see' things, everything in what the people you 'see' as 'real' scientists 'see' in what you and they consider to be the 'real' world is a 'metaphor' for the what's 'real' in the unseen spiritual world.

I truly have no idea what is meant by the words spirit and spiritual.

[davidsun]

There is no lose in debate. If I win, I get the smug satisfaction of confirming that my view of the world is correct and trouncing the opponents. It is even better if I am bested in debate. Then I get the opportunity to improve my understanding of the world. But the best outcome of debate is a kind of Hegelian synthesis of views.

Rings true to me. I just don't 'groove' with 'smugness' ('besting'?) - or 'being bested'. The 'outcome' you assert you 'aim' for strikes me as being desirable and laudable, however.

This is a debating site; you might have determined that from the URL. In debate, you have made claims about the nature of Noetics.

In my view, 'truth' is never just 'this' or 'that' or 'this and that'. I therefore find 'debate' as a mode of truth examination and exploration lacking. Whether it is or isn't is, I concede, 'debatable', but the fact that I find it so is not.

I just entered the conversation by offering what I thought was a respectable 'pantheistic' view/description of Life which I suggested might 'survive' attempts at 'invalidation' on your part.

Those claims [regarding Noetics] have been challenged. Both recently and back in 2014 ... What about noetics? You may either defend your claims or withdraw them. As it is, the debate has started without you. Noetics has been described as woo and pseudoscience. So far, I tend to agree with that assessment.

I merely provided a link to the noetics.org site stating that I thought there was a lot of evidence regarding what those you call 'real' scientists refuse to acknowledge exists is available there. You of course may draw your own conclusions in said regard. I respect the fact that your 'opinion' is that all of 'Noetics' just "woo and pseudoscience."

I truly have no idea what is meant by the words spirit and spiritual.

'Anger' is spiritual phenomenon. 'Hate' is also spiritual, as is 'Love'. 'Spirit' is 'motion'-activating, as in e-motion, or e-motion-al. Your desire to 'debate' is spiritual.

Here is an excerpt from the book I wrote which I hope gives you a 'sense' of my view of 'reality' (in the above and related regards):

"Efforts to creatively resolve our dilemmas and difficulties have been confounded by distorted formulations of the truth which are cherished and maintained by those who are fearful of Life’s flux, because they provide them with a ‘sense’ of order and certainty. Many who are awed by the momentous effects of psychospiritual dynamics, for example, postulate and believe in the potency of petitionable movers and governors, above and beyond the range of ‘normal’ being. With conviction, they pity and proselytize people of different persuasion. Zealots even go so far as to condemn and treat as damned anyone who will not acknowledge and uphold what they brandish as supreme. Ostensibly rational others, on the other hand, codify the existence of invariant ‘natural’ laws and forces, and believe them and nothing else to be determining. They self-righteously regard as stupid, even treat as insane, anyone who doesn’t talk and act as if what they imagine to be paramount is controlling.

"The trouble is, though they make much of their differences, members of both such schools of thought erroneously agree. At most they dispute among themselves whether the rules or rulers they’ve mind-enthroned are biased in relation to particular values or personages and, if so, for what purpose(s) and to what degree. In the end, they are similarly hamstrung by the common assumption they make, for all who believe in the absolute dominance of other forces then think of Life as one or another sort of script being staged and act puppet-like within it accordingly.

"The potentially liberating and amendatory truth (which, for the forementioned reasons, many don’t appreciate) is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by custom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by misusage, I generally refer to it alternatively, as Intelligence, Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am, or That Which Is, at root within each and everyone. (Though the full import of this cause of all causes may yet escape you, the following review and analysis of our catalog of scientific knowledge should at least make its fundamental character obvious."

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Having said all of the above if I were going to VOTE for a basis for human society I would vote for secularism. I don't see where a pantheistic worldview would be useful or have anything more to offer in terms of how a society should conduct themselves.

I agree with your overall regard for the pantheist understanding, however I also think that the idea of GOD (inclusive of all that exists) is able to be separated through form/matter as to consciously experience the different aspects of the universe as individuate.

For example, you and I are separate/individuate beings in different human forms, yet are equally GOD (experiencing aspects of itself) and for that - I at least understand it to be - before biological life forms came to be (as forms to be experienced through) the experience of being a planet was undergone...and is still ongoing...and thus there is some kind of precedent for a useful world-view in relation to politics which potentially would be far more useful to the consciousness related to the planet to embrace than the secular one presently in vogue.

Also, whilst the notion that GOD overall is without personality/ego, the same might not be the case for the entity experiencing being the planet (and all critters etc on/in it) although we can hardly expect IT to being oh-so-human, we can at least appreciate it will have certain traits.

For me at least, it explains why the notion of a creator-god has gained the ground it has with so many individuals albeit - as groups - they don't all agree with each other...I personally think of this Entity as 'the local GOD' and regardless of the many names it has been given (or has given) IT is the same one through and through and secularism cannot interact with IT, given secularism's world view and general attitude on the matter.

So if I see myself as anything, I align with Pantheism, even that the general description tends toward the overall, rather than the nitty-gritty.

The 'devil' is indeed, in the details.

I would agree that the term "God" especially with a capital "G" is understood in western cultures to mean an egotistical entity that is totally separate from all humans. It is also often seen as the ultimate ruler, dictator, or entity of authority that must be obeyed or at the very least "appeased" lest it will become angry with the humans who have failed to obey or appease it.

I will be the first to agree that western cultures have made a disgrace of the very concept of "God".

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

I would love to be able to convey my understanding of a serious "pantheistic" philosophy that doesn't degrade into becoming about an egotistical Godhead. And try to explain how this differs from secularism.

It is not necessary to 'degrade' by understanding the gods within the GOD.

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD