| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| somnium wrote: | | The purest reasoning system sees clearly what is 'God'. Meaning true science sees/meets God. Having pure awareness, is to have the reasoning system that meets 'God'. To become aware of 'God'. |
It's great to have an optimum reasoning system for those subject matters of which reason is applicable. I don't see how the nature of God is such a subject matter in which reason is applicable. If we subsume our inquiry into the nature of God under a pure reasoning system, we will be lowering God to the level of human reason and understanding. In this case, God is rendered human and certainly not perfect.
Anyhow, this is how I see it. I think God has more to do with personal experience than it does with reason. It's not something we can prove or disprove.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rasputin wrote: | | somnium wrote: | | The purest reasoning system sees clearly what is 'God'. Meaning true science sees/meets God. Having pure awareness, is to have the reasoning system that meets 'God'. To become aware of 'God'. |
It's great to have an optimum reasoning system for those subject matters of which reason is applicable. I don't see how the nature of God is such a subject matter in which reason is applicable. If we subsume our inquiry into the nature of God under a pure reasoning system, we will be lowering God to the level of human reason and understanding. In this case, God is rendered human and certainly not perfect.
Anyhow, this is how I see it. I think God has more to do with personal experience than it does with reason. It's not something we can prove or disprove. |
If we examine the duck, are we elevating it to our level?
If we examine god, are we making him human?
Are we ducks?
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The duck is on a lower level that us. Our minds are capable of understanding the duck, plus much more. So, we don't have to raise the duck to human level to understand him. God, however, is on a highler level than us. Our minds are incapable of understanding God, that is why using our reason to understand God moves Him down to our level so that He is no longer God. It's a relation of understanding. If there is something we cannot understand, yet we use our reason to provide an explanation of it, then the product of our explanation cannot be the origicanl referrant of the explanation, but only the product of our attempt to understand it.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| somnium wrote: | "Do I yearn for meaning? Is that what drives my quest? I would answer yes, but that the same is true for all humanity, regardless of level of awareness of it."
hmm, well lucky for 'humanity' that they are not bound to assumptions. Many do not yearn for anything, let alone meaning. Perhaps definition is what many yearn for, but are they yearning for ir, or are they living it? Is that really a question? |
I don't see that history bears out what you are saying, here. History is full of endeavors of humans to fill their lives with meaning.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rasputin wrote: | | The duck is on a lower level that us. Our minds are capable of understanding the duck, plus much more. So, we don't have to raise the duck to human level to understand him. God, however, is on a highler level than us. Our minds are incapable of understanding God, that is why using our reason to understand God moves Him down to our level so that He is no longer God. It's a relation of understanding. If there is something we cannot understand, yet we use our reason to provide an explanation of it, then the product of our explanation cannot be the origicanl referrant of the explanation, but only the product of our attempt to understand it. |
I understand your sentiment.
But i am feeling some circular logic.
Although i am having trouble pointing it out.
But i would ask you, is anything simply as we can say it is? Realities are subjective on some levels.
It's easy to be a skeptic though.
By which reasoning process do you assert that god is higher than our understanding can illuminate?
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, several things.
1. By the definition of God as we use it, He is outside human comprehension.
2. If God is infinite, and we are finite, then how can our finite minds conprehend an infinite being?
3. If you agree that God does not have qualities (which not all do, but some do) then how can we use reason to understand God, since by it's nature, reason disects things by separating the component parts and determining the relations between them?
4. If God was so easy to understand, like the nature of a duck, then why is there so much controversy over His nature? It seems He is very difficult to understand.
5. If God was so easy to understand, what would be the point of spiritual development? There wouldn't be much spiritual advancement to do, particularly, but not exclusively, if you agree with my other reasons.
Note: These reasons are not interdependent, but stand-alone, so there is no circularity between them.
Note2: Reason 5 does reference the other reasons, but does not depend on them. So, there still is no circularity.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: here we go again |
|
|
| Quote: | | 1. By the definition of God as we use it, He is outside human comprehension. |
I don't think it makes sense to assume qualities of a god when we are asking what that god is.
| Quote: | | 2. If God is infinite, and we are finite, then how can our finite minds comprehend an infinite being? |
Again, our idea of god thus far tells us he is infinite. But i don't think that is a reasoning process. That is a "fact" about him.
What tells us that he is infinite, or not a series of forces that function in a similar manner? perhaps he lives for a very very looong time.
| Quote: | | 3. If you agree that God does not have qualities (which not all do, but some do) then how can we use reason to understand God, since by it's nature, reason disects things by separating the component parts and determining the relations between them? |
I think if he is anything, he has qualities of some nature.
Every idea the mind holds has qualities. Even the idea of nothing.
| Quote: | | 4. If God was so easy to understand, like the nature of a duck, then why is there so much controversy over His nature? It seems He is very difficult to understand. |
To play rough, it's tough to varify and unify something that doesn't exist except in our own minds.
And i'm not saying it is easy, i am simply saying that we cannot assume too much going into this. It is the territory of human reason, subject to human experience. It is hard to see through a telescope with imperfect glass. That doesn't mean there isn't a boat on the horizon.
| Quote: | | 5. If God was so easy to understand, what would be the point of spiritual development? There wouldn't be much spiritual advancement to do, particularly, but not exclusively, if you agree with my other reasons. |
The validity of spiritual development does not factor into the nature of what god is because it is entirely dependant on what god is.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyle
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 2210
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| C.Beck wrote: | | To play rough, it's tough to varify and unify something that doesn't exist except in our own minds. |
This is also an assumption about God.
| C.Beck wrote: | | The validity of spiritual development does not factor into the nature of what god is because it is entirely dependant on what god is. |
Hmm... So basically...
Without knowing God, spiritual development has no validity.
_________________
New levels of truth come from new levels of understanding.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kylewkeith
Save my band: http://sites.google.com/site/savetheascendents/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kyle wrote: | | C.Beck wrote: | | To play rough, it's tough to varify and unify something that doesn't exist except in our own minds. |
This is also an assumption about God.
| C.Beck wrote: | | The validity of spiritual development does not factor into the nature of what god is because it is entirely dependant on what god is. |
Hmm... So basically...
Without knowing God, spiritual development has no validity. |
first, touche. I recognized that and added the rest of of the response on a second read through. It was more of a classic athiest stab. I have trouble supressing it.
Second, i think so.
Or perhaps developing your spirituality is finding god, period
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: Re: here we go again |
|
|
| C.Beck wrote: | | Quote: | | 1. By the definition of God as we use it, He is outside human comprehension. |
I don't think it makes sense to assume qualities of a god when we are asking what that god is.
| Quote: | | 2. If God is infinite, and we are finite, then how can our finite minds comprehend an infinite being? |
Again, our idea of god thus far tells us he is infinite. But i don't think that is a reasoning process. That is a "fact" about him.
What tells us that he is infinite, or not a series of forces that function in a similar manner? perhaps he lives for a very very looong time.
| Quote: | | 3. If you agree that God does not have qualities (which not all do, but some do) then how can we use reason to understand God, since by it's nature, reason disects things by separating the component parts and determining the relations between them? |
I think if he is anything, he has qualities of some nature.
Every idea the mind holds has qualities. Even the idea of nothing.
| Quote: | | 4. If God was so easy to understand, like the nature of a duck, then why is there so much controversy over His nature? It seems He is very difficult to understand. |
To play rough, it's tough to varify and unify something that doesn't exist except in our own minds.
And i'm not saying it is easy, i am simply saying that we cannot assume too much going into this. It is the territory of human reason, subject to human experience. It is hard to see through a telescope with imperfect glass. That doesn't mean there isn't a boat on the horizon.
| Quote: | | 5. If God was so easy to understand, what would be the point of spiritual development? There wouldn't be much spiritual advancement to do, particularly, but not exclusively, if you agree with my other reasons. |
The validity of spiritual development does not factor into the nature of what god is because it is entirely dependant on what god is. |
1. Fine, let's hash that out.
2. I think the infinitude of God is built into the very notion of God, conceptually speaking. If we talk about a god who is not infinite, then it's cetagorically not God. Think of such a god. What comes to mind? Zues, Odin, Ra, or some other anthropomorphized myth about what God is. I'm not looking to understand God by subsuming him under human reason by projecting my own humanity onto Him.
3. Perhaps. But, it would at least be safe to say that, if God has qualities, they are not physical. I'm talking about a God who is at least partially transcendent, who in fact created the physical universe. The absence of physical qualities makes Him quite intangible and thus difficult for reason to dissect in a manner that serves as acceptable proof to somebody else.
4. This one was already tackled by the other poster. It is an assumption. If you agree that there may be a boat of the horizon, then we have the same starting point; we genuinely want to know the truth.
5. I'm not saying the difficult nature of spiritual development has anything to say about God's nature, rather about the relation between human nature and God's nature, such that the gap between the two is difficult to bridge.
6. Given the above, it seems we are left with the hypothesis that there may be a God, and that if there is, spiritual development is attained by learning something of Him and bridging the gap between human and divine natures. But where do we begin the inquiry? The problem is, there is no sensory data to serve as proof one way or the other. For me, the primary factor here is intuition. The only way to have any understanding of God is by gathering information that is intangible.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: here we go again |
|
|
| on a previous post, Rasputin wrote: | | It's great to have an optimum reasoning system for those subject matters of which reason is applicable. |
Reason is applicable to all subject matter; for some subjects, however, it alone is not sufficient for understanding.
| Rasputin wrote: | | I think the infinitude of God is built into the very notion of God, conceptually speaking. If we talk about a god who is not infinite, then it's cetagorically not God. Think of such a god. What comes to mind? Zues, Odin, Ra, or some other anthropomorphized myth about what God is. I'm not looking to understand God by subsuming him under human reason by projecting my own humanity onto Him. |
Humans deal with the concept of mathematical infinity quite nicely, so the mere fact that something is infinite does not mean it is completely beyond our understanding. Perhaps on a metaphysical level, we are infinite, too? We are, in any case, human, and thus have no choice but to "anthropomorphize" deity, at least to some degree.
| Rasputin wrote: | | But, it would at least be safe to say that, if God has qualities, they are not physical. I'm talking about a God who is at least partially transcendent, who in fact created the physical universe. The absence of physical qualities makes Him quite intangible and thus difficult for reason to dissect in a manner that serves as acceptable proof to somebody else. |
We have qualities that are intangible as well, often the very qualities that are depicted as tying us most closely with the divine.
| Rasputin wrote: | | I'm not saying the difficult nature of spiritual development has anything to say about God's nature, rather about the relation between human nature and God's nature, such that the gap between the two is difficult to bridge. |
I would say, rather, that the one (human nature) is a subset of the other (divine nature), from whence it came.
| Rasputin wrote: | | Given the above, it seems we are left with the hypothesis that there may be a God, and that if there is, spiritual development is attained by learning something of Him and bridging the gap between human and divine natures. But where do we begin the inquiry? The problem is, there is no sensory data to serve as proof one way or the other. For me, the primary factor here is intuition. The only way to have any understanding of God is by gathering information that is intangible. |
Perhaps we bridge this gap most effectively and completely by seeking the divine within ourselves, and others. I would agree that there is no proof regarding deity, but would not so quickly assert that there are no sensory data, and that all relevant information is intangible.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyle
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 2210
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: Re: here we go again |
|
|
Outside of every motivation, God sees/acts with a bigger picture.
"Divine Nature" overrules "Human Nature"
Evidence..? Open your eyes.
_________________
New levels of truth come from new levels of understanding.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kylewkeith
Save my band: http://sites.google.com/site/savetheascendents/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
somnium
Member
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Every system of reasoning defines, out of the infinite possibilities, the world one is partaking in. One can not speak of another in this case, they can only speak for themselves. If you believe you can speak for another, and have the power to do so, you are merely limiting the beings you come into contact with, through your own interpretation. This is why a wise man knows that he knows nothing, in doing so he has infinite possibilities to learn, infinite ways to follow. Arrogance is truely a sad human traight, it doesn't really matter tho. Pure reason does meet pure understanding, however solely for the reasoning system one is 'within'.
If you yourself deem something as 'difficult', then be prepard to meet your definition as 'difficult' in the endevour you are partaking in.
Where does anything truely exist, if not inside the 'mind'? Expand the mind and expand anything. Perhaps.. the mind is tool we were given, to guide us in our perceptions, to expand, in awareness, to new horizons. Perhaps the world exists inside of your eyes, all alone.
In the words of Kahlil Gibran "say not that i have found the truth, but rather say i have found a truth".
on the road to infinity, life is a definative journey. for you alone. be not bound to another's truth, but find your own.
as per 'God', in biblical terms, God is all around us, all the time, in everything. God IS everything. We merely judge God, and live inside our judgements. Can you be free from them, to see more? God is infinite. 'the garden of eden' given to you, and everyting in it, with pure choice. reaters knowledge, and destroyers knowledge, you choose, and live your choices. Death and Live, or perhaps discontinuity within continuity. time. can you be free form the judgements you have witnessed, to see more. can you die, and continue to live? let go of what you believe to believe something else? what else is within this energetic field we percieve? what other forms can one build, within infinite possibilities. we were created in Gods image, an infinite image. food for thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: Re: here we go again |
|
|
| Romana wrote: | | on a previous post, Rasputin wrote: | | It's great to have an optimum reasoning system for those subject matters of which reason is applicable. |
Reason is applicable to all subject matter; for some subjects, however, it alone is not sufficient for understanding.
| Rasputin wrote: | | I think the infinitude of God is built into the very notion of God, conceptually speaking. If we talk about a god who is not infinite, then it's cetagorically not God. Think of such a god. What comes to mind? Zues, Odin, Ra, or some other anthropomorphized myth about what God is. I'm not looking to understand God by subsuming him under human reason by projecting my own humanity onto Him. |
Humans deal with the concept of mathematical infinity quite nicely, so the mere fact that something is infinite does not mean it is completely beyond our understanding. Perhaps on a metaphysical level, we are infinite, too? We are, in any case, human, and thus have no choice but to "anthropomorphize" deity, at least to some degree.
| Rasputin wrote: | | But, it would at least be safe to say that, if God has qualities, they are not physical. I'm talking about a God who is at least partially transcendent, who in fact created the physical universe. The absence of physical qualities makes Him quite intangible and thus difficult for reason to dissect in a manner that serves as acceptable proof to somebody else. |
We have qualities that are intangible as well, often the very qualities that are depicted as tying us most closely with the divine.
| Rasputin wrote: | | I'm not saying the difficult nature of spiritual development has anything to say about God's nature, rather about the relation between human nature and God's nature, such that the gap between the two is difficult to bridge. |
I would say, rather, that the one (human nature) is a subset of the other (divine nature), from whence it came.
| Rasputin wrote: | | Given the above, it seems we are left with the hypothesis that there may be a God, and that if there is, spiritual development is attained by learning something of Him and bridging the gap between human and divine natures. But where do we begin the inquiry? The problem is, there is no sensory data to serve as proof one way or the other. For me, the primary factor here is intuition. The only way to have any understanding of God is by gathering information that is intangible. |
Perhaps we bridge this gap most effectively and completely by seeking the divine within ourselves, and others. I would agree that there is no proof regarding deity, but would not so quickly assert that there are no sensory data, and that all relevant information is intangible. |
1. Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said the proof is not applicable to the study of God, rather than reason. I certainly am not advocating being unrational; I'm trying to say that we can't rely on reason alone, that intuition must be a factor if we are to understand anything of the nature of God.
2. Again, fair enough, we can understand infinity to some degree. But that does not mean we can completely understand infinity. I don't see any reason to believe we are inifnite, but rather, see our limitations as indicative of our finitude. I don't see why we have to anthropomorphize God, since such would necesserily lead us to a fallacious notion of God. It seems you are saying that since we cannot understand God completely, then we must rely on fallacious notions to complete our understanding. Why can't we just be honest about what we do and don't understand, can and can't understand? How can we grow spiritually without such honesty?
3. I can accept that we have intangible qualities. Good point.
4. We may be subsets of the divine nature. If this is the case, I don't think it follows that we are infinite. Mathematically, I know that dividing infinity by any number yields infinity. But, if God, in any way, divided His nature to create us, and looking at how obviously imperfect we are, I think that God must have somehow set aside some qualities of His nature in this division process, which renderd us finite.
5. I agree that, to develop spiritually, we need to seek the divine nature within ourselves and others. I would qualify that with my previous statement, that we are finite versions of the divine nature. How is it that there can be sensory data of the divine, as well as tangible data? If we have these things, and since you agree there is no proof, what do you see as the relation between sensory\tangible data and proof? Perhaps I am not speaking precisely. According to scientific method, there is no proof of anything, but most probably hypotheses. Do you think we have most probably hypotheses in favor of the existence of God and about the nature of God, and if so, are they related to sensory and to intuitive data? I'm curious to know what sensory and tangible data you think we can have about God.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Re: here we go again |
|
|
| Kyle wrote: | Outside of every motivation, God sees/acts with a bigger picture.
"Divine Nature" overrules "Human Nature"
Evidence..? Open your eyes. |
Can you elaborate on this? I find it interesting, you seem to agree with Romana that there is some tangible data about God's existence and nature. What is this data? What is it's nature? If we are to use scientific method to form hypotheses about they physical world, where do we draw the line as to what is supernatural and natural causation? According to scientific method, everything is explainable according to physical causation as apprehended by sense data, and we know this a priori. I think this is a contradition, which is why I think we need to separate the subject matter of science and spirituality. If we mix them, as you seem to be suggesting, how do we know where to draw the line?
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
