From another thread posted by Quantam Quack,
"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed does exist if only we allow that definition to exist."

Not that (for the purpose of this thread) "God indeed does exist if we allow that definition", but I thought it enjoyable to see what we deduce God could, or should be, or if it is even possible to put down a sufficient amount of pre-conceptions for us to create attributes we would like of God.

How difficult would it be for us to create God without cultural inclusions and, or religious histories or creeds. Where shall we start, while we "put down all prior conceptions"?

I thought this was worthy of some exploration.

You first!

The only sure way to deal with God, is to assert fundementally that he is a necessary being/thing with perfect qualities and attributes that are logically consistant. I shall later purpose what I assert God is either in this thread or in another.

I can deal with "logically consistant", why perfect though? That appears to be a pre-disposition, and/or culturally concieved notion.

In order for him to be a necessary being, with "omni" attributes, those things must be perfect. It ceases to be omnipotence, for instance, if it is not perfect power.

"In order for him to be a necessary being, with "omni" attributes, those things must be perfect. It ceases to be omnipotence, for instance, if it is not perfect power."

I thought we were forgetting all prior conceptions of 'God' though.

When I look at the world around me, its hard to imagine that a god of any kind could really exist, but what about this: What if God was some unexplained force or presence that attempted to keep balance on Earth? When humans "got smart" so to say and started building entire cities, using earth's limited resources, polluting the air, breeding like roaches, and upsetting the balance of ecosysems, this God attempts to retore Earth to its original state by means of natural disasters, disease, the possibility of meteors hitting the earth.

Haha, just thought that up in about half a minute, but I guess it's as good as any other conception of God I've ever heard of.

Ibanez:

I thought we were forgetting all prior conceptions of 'God' though.

I really ought to have started from a foundation in explaining why God ought to be perfect, in order to be God, but this is really just an extension of my logical theology.

When I look at the world around me, its hard to imagine that a god of any kind could really exist, but what about this: What if God was some unexplained force or presence that attempted to keep balance on Earth? When humans "got smart" so to say and started building entire cities, using earth's limited resources, polluting the air, breeding like roaches, and upsetting the balance of ecosysems, this God attempts to retore Earth to its original state by means of natural disasters, disease, the possibility of meteors hitting the earth.

Haha, just thought that up in about half a minute, but I guess it's as good as any other conception of God I've ever heard of.

It's semi-valid, I suppose. No real proof for the theory, though.

By Ibanez…
"I thought we were forgetting all prior conceptions of 'God' though."

That was the original exercise yes, and you gave us some material to explore. I didn’t even know if it was possible to begin anywhere but I think you may have just done that.

Your premise began, as "When I look at the world around me". I think that to deny culture or preconceived notions, the only thing we have left is our environment, our known experiences (save cultural, historical references) and us; whatever that may be worth.

Your God sounds much like the idea, held by some worldviews, that the earth and all of the contents, including life etc. is a symbiotic entity, its own living and breathing organism. Your God, in contrast, is external to this world or such an entity. So your God is not necessarily part of the organism, as in ‘God is the conglomerate of all that exists’, he appears to be separate from, but has an interest in our environment.

Your God has the necessary power to change and influence the operations of the world as we know it, but you have not necessarily given him an all-powerful characteristic. He has the power to change the world, but what of the rest of the universe? Does he need to have some influence (and or power) over our solar system, for instance, so that earth can sustain life etc.? Does he need limitless power in order to keep the balance?

What tools does he need at his disposal, to accomplish his balancing act that you have charged him with? Does he need to be all knowing for instance? Was he left in charge, or was he self-appointed? Did he claim this power from a greater power, or is there no greater power?

What would be the purpose of a balanced earth? What would be the reason he was concerned? What goals would be met by keeping the earth in check? Is it his? Does it exist for him, or does he exist for it?

Notice... you didn't start with your 'self' or your 'I', you began with the external to imagine your God, though it could be argued that without the ‘I’ the world around you could not be experienced or observed. It may require a balance of both the ‘I’ and the external to conceive the notion of God.

Those can be difficult questions to answer. That's what I was getting at when I said "When I look at the world around me, its hard to imagine that a god of any kind could really exist." With most, probably all conecptions of God he/she just is, and they do what they do because they do. I've never seen the intentions of any God ever explained. So it becomes difficult to answer questions such as "What would be the purpose of a balanced earth?" and "What would be the reason he was concerned?" because there's no significant reason as far was we can comprehend.

But ok, I'll give it a whack. Perhaps this God does have power throughout the entire universe, however this is less evident because not only do we know little on the grand scale of the universe, but there isn't much out there to distroy the balance of everything. Matter and energy are still recycled throughout the universe as here on earth. Dying stars implode and send enormous ammounts of gas out into space, which later collects together again and forms more stars, but there is very little to interfere with this and therefore little for this God to worry about.

I can't come up with anything to explain his powers or how he got in power. Perhaps he was just an entity created along with the rest of the universe during the big bang. Perhaps God has a deep love of the Universe, or at least feels some sort of need to retain its beauty and that's why he manipulates the operations of the universe to attempt to restore order on earth.

Hope that sounds fairly reasonable.

It's not unreasonable.

lol... yeah, is the concept of "God" even reasonable?

Correct. While I personally assert that it is reasonable, I wish to explore the possibility of creating God from scratch. In some way, it is a reflection of some anthropological, cultural study in what we can create on our own, and without influence. It's just fun, I think, to try and be that disengaged from our, presuppositions on matters of God.

It’s also a linguistics exercise, since the word’ God’ is a very loaded single word, as are the 'Omni' attributes. Anyhow, it’s fun to try.

Hah, I somehow failed to see the "un" infront of resonable, I misunderstood what you said. It'd be interesting to see what others would come up with...

I, and others, came to the realization we will die someday, which became an unbearable emotional drain. This caused us to question ourselves and eventually our environment. We had no knowledge of science, yet we needed answers, and soon.

We invented answers based on pure guesswork and a consensus was reached.

Religion was born.

If there is a God, I doubt he is the one as perscribed by our religions.

For him to be omni and outside of time, he would see the world as a static picture with time along one axis. As the world was created he would already know all the consequences - I am not responcible for my actions - he is. Any uncertainty requires him to be imperfect.

I would suspect that if there is somekind of super entity, that he is just flesh and blood. An alien!

Probably dead by now, so it's ok to 'take his name in vain'/rape/pillage.

;)

The only sure way to deal with God, is to assert fundementally that he is a necessary being/thing with perfect qualities and attributes that are logically consistant. I shall later purpose what I assert God is either in this thread or in another.
What's perfect?

lol... yeah, is the concept of "God" even reasonable?
Is quantum mechanics reasonable? :eek:

Truthseeker:

What is perfect? The ultimate expression logically of the attribute. Examples:

Omnipotence - All power within logical bounds.

Omniscience - All knowledge.

Omnipresence - Encompasing and being all of existence and reality.

If God does not have these, and a few other, attributes, then he is not a logical necessity, and in which case unless God reveals himself to us, we cannot know him ever, and ontop of that, he'd be contingent.

What is really perfection? Is it an absolute concept or is it dependent on your perception? Can there be any "perfection"?

I, and others, came to the realization we will die someday, which became an unbearable emotional drain. This caused us to question ourselves and eventually our environment. We had no knowledge of science, yet we needed answers, and soon.

We invented answers based on pure guesswork and a consensus was reached.

Religion was born.

Is your favorite singer Jimmy Buffet? See if you can guess what I mean by that.

So, the emotional fear of death created the need for a higher being, and without any knowledge of science the consensus created God. Does science now fill the emotional void (the fear of death) that caused this myth to emerge from the imaginations of the masses? Science now answers for man that; what? Death is harmless and wonderful?

Science makes no claim to fill emotional needs, does it? I hope not; I would doubt any such science.

The ‘primatives’ who sought answers to the question of ‘what happens at death?’ are (were) far more advanced than one who scoffs at such questions, but offers no answer.

Truthseeker:

As perfection is rooted in logic, perfection is objective and not bound by perspective.

Does science now fill the emotional void (the fear of death) that caused this myth to emerge from the imaginations of the masses?

Why should it?

Science now answers for man that; what? Death is harmless and wonderful?

Absolutely, give it a shot.

Science makes no claim to fill emotional needs, does it? I hope not; I would doubt any such science.

Then you must doubt science.

The ‘primatives’ who sought answers to the question of ‘what happens at death?’ are (were) far more advanced than one who scoffs at such questions, but offers no answer.

Is that a question?

If you are going to hold on to something you better be strong, not for holding on but for when its all over. For this I have not the will to believe in any God

Truthseeker:

As perfection is rooted in logic, perfection is objective and not bound by perspective.
Well, if that's true, can you give me an overview of the logical argument? ;)

Sure.

Let me take a common attribute of God, omnipresence, and use it to logically conclude what perfection is for it. Not to prove that omnipresence exists - I have logical proofs for that, but will be showing them when I write up a big thing on it - but simply to demonstrate how perfection, for any given thing, is logically demonstrated.

Presence is the quality of existing. Normal, imperfect existence, takes up a specific measurement of space, be it a cubic centimetre, a cubic metre, or a cubic anything. But what would be the ultimate expression of existence? To exist as the totality of reality. What is perfection but the ultimate expression of something, its ideal state? In the quality of existence, can something which exists throughout all reality have a flaw in its quality of existence? Nay. It has fullfilled the totality of existence. With this in mind, we conclude that omnipresence is the ultimate expression of existence, its perfection.

[SM]Does science now fill the emotional void (the fear of death) that caused this myth to emerge from the imaginations of the masses?

[Q]Why should it?

Wasn't me who claimed that God was created due to a lack of science, and you quantified the necesity of the answer. You said, speaking for the primatives that, "yet we needed answers, and soon." That would be your question to answer, it was not my premise. Actually it wasn't yours either, but you did introduce it here.





[SM]Science now answers for man that; what? Death is harmless and wonderful?

[Q]Absolutely, give it a shot.

Tell the primatives in your story. It was they (you claimed... not I), had those needs. You should share with them all of your scientific knowledge that would answer the question for them; you know... to put their emotional minds at ease; so that they don't create God in the first place. They have caused so much trouble for you and ask the siliest questions.





[SM]Science makes no claim to fill emotional needs, does it? I hope not; I would doubt any such science.

[Q]Then you must doubt science.

Wow; personal science? OK, if that's the kind of science you believe in, go ahead; have faith!





[SM]The ‘primatives’ who sought answers to the question of ‘what happens at death?’ are (were) far more advanced than one who scoffs at such questions, but offers no answer.

[Q]Is that a question?

Is there a question mark at the end of the sentance? No. I already answered that one so you don't have to.

Prince James,

Sure.

Let me take a common attribute of God, omnipresence, and use it to logically conclude what perfection is for it. Not to prove that omnipresence exists - I have logical proofs for that, but will be showing them when I write up a big thing on it - but simply to demonstrate how perfection, for any given thing, is logically demonstrated.

Presence is the quality of existing. Normal, imperfect existence, takes up a specific measurement of space, be it a cubic centimetre, a cubic metre, or a cubic anything. But what would be the ultimate expression of existence? To exist as the totality of reality. What is perfection but the ultimate expression of something, its ideal state? In the quality of existence, can something which exists throughout all reality have a flaw in its quality of existence? Nay. It has fullfilled the totality of existence. With this in mind, we conclude that omnipresence is the ultimate expression of existence, its perfection.

I know you are working on your entire logical theology, but I have some questions about your premise of perfect.

(1) Presence is the quality of existing.

I know it may be a question of semantics and I don't wish to introduce circular thinking on this, but by “existing” do you mean objective reality. It is difficult for obvious reasons furthered by your argument. If it is quantifiable… measurable, has depth, can be touched, then it cannot exist, both perfect and objective simultaneously. Is this why a logical God cannot exist?

(2) It has fullfilled the totality of existence. With this in mind, we conclude that omnipresence is the ultimate expression of existence, its perfection.


Is then space-time perfect in objective reality (existence)? Space-time can break down in some theories, but the realities expressed by such theories do not fit your definition of objective reality do they, so space–time may be the ultimate expression of existence? If not Space-time than what is perfect, a unified theory that can be shown to be objectively true in all disciplines? It seems there is no perfect.

A little help on those, so I can follow your next tenant.

Sure.

Let me take a common attribute of God, omnipresence, and use it to logically conclude what perfection is for it. Not to prove that omnipresence exists - I have logical proofs for that, but will be showing them when I write up a big thing on it - but simply to demonstrate how perfection, for any given thing, is logically demonstrated.

Presence is the quality of existing. Normal, imperfect existence, takes up a specific measurement of space, be it a cubic centimetre, a cubic metre, or a cubic anything. But what would be the ultimate expression of existence? To exist as the totality of reality. What is perfection but the ultimate expression of something, its ideal state? In the quality of existence, can something which exists throughout all reality have a flaw in its quality of existence? Nay. It has fullfilled the totality of existence. With this in mind, we conclude that omnipresence is the ultimate expression of existence, its perfection.
I see what you are saying.
However, would a state of perfection be permanent? That is, if you attain perfection, would it be a constant unchangin state?

Scott Myers,

In one word: layers.

Just my two cents. ;)


Yaba Daba :m:

What is really perfection? Is it an absolute concept or is it dependent on your perception? Can there be any "perfection"?

As perfection is rooted in logic, perfection is objective and not bound by perspective.

can perfection ever be complete. that is; as a state is reached, previously though of as being the perfect state, there may be a perception of further growth, further work towards a greater being, each plateau of perfection contains the opportunity for even greater perfection. the constant elimination of the lower is the perpetual integration of the higher.

Scott Myers,

In one word: layers.

Just my two cents. ;)


Yaba Daba :m:

No, I understand!

can perfection ever be complete. that is; as a state is reached, previously though of as being the perfect state, there may be a perception of further growth, further work towards a greater being, each plateau of perfection contains the opportunity for even greater perfection. the constant elimination of the lower is the perpetual integration of the higher.
That's exactly what I pointed out. Why don't you just let him get it? ;)

Yaba Daba :m:

No, I understand!
Well, that's delightful.

Party time!!!
*dancing*

Yaba Daba :m:

truthseeker,

is it just him that needs to get it? ;)

Actually it wasn't yours either, but you did introduce it here.

You said:

if it is even possible to put down a sufficient amount of pre-conceptions for us to create attributes we would like of God.

They have caused so much trouble for you and ask the siliest questions.

No, they just had silly answers, in which 'They have caused so much trouble' is a gross understatement.

Is there a question mark at the end of the sentance? No. I already answered that one so you don't have to.

Very well, then.

Is there anything else tying knots in your panties?

BTW - who is Jimmy Buffet?

who is Jimmy Buffet?

A famous American Singer. They call his fans Parrot Heads.

Oh, I see. You were attempting to insult me. Good one. :rolleyes:

Omnipotence - All power within logical bounds.

Power of nothing. You can only do what is perfect. You must follow specific lines.

Omniscience - All knowledge.

The mind knows everything, since everything is in the mind. It's impossible to be conscious of something outside your consciousness, hence everything is in you, you're just conscious of your unconscious.

Omniscience - Knowledge of nothing...

Omnipresence - Encompasing and being all of existence and reality.

The self is omnipresent. Some creatures are conscious of it...

What is really perfection?

Everything, of course. Perfection can never be reached because it already is. It is the center of the spiral where everything rises. You became the center of the universe. Everywhere.

~ Nothing

Perfection can never be reached because it already is.

Does that perfection include war, terrorism, pestulence, starvation, disease, murder?

His existence depends on His definition. Without preconceptions, it is possible to define God as something that exists. For example, if God is the energy that drives atoms around, then it can be considered to exist. Unfortunately, there are no adequate definitions of God, which leaves atheists at something of a loss to argue against it, and gives the religious an easy out in the debate.

Mostly the definition is so nebulous or all pervasive that it is meaningless. I believe that Jesus thought of God as a name given to existence, a name that is better left unsaid because it is too limiting. In this case, it is just terminology for philosophy in the way that new terms must be created in mathematics to discuss new ideas.

Perfection can never be reached because it already is.

Does that perfection include war, terrorism, pestulence, starvation, disease, murder?

Of course. They are divine things. They are the negative side of divinity. They must exist so that the positive would exist, so that the unity and attraction between them would exist. They come from the same stem. These two sides are as illusional as up and down, and they have no independent existence without the mind. When the negative and positive are united, a "child" is born, and everything except that child dissapears, and that child is nothing. The one who does without doing. The one who works but does not collect the effects of his actions. The presence.

Evil is a force of balance. Good becomes evil if it falls out of balance, and evil becomes good when it falls out of balance. People only want the positive things, so they remain in the neverending circle of life and death. Become the center of the circle where there is no positive or negative, where they are united.

Evil is not evil, good is not good. Perfection is not perfection.

Christ-satan. Evil is the force which makes us hate this world and come back to the "paradise" which is neither negative or positive.

Of course. They are divine things. They are the negative side of divinity.

Why then do so many recieve little more than the negative side of divinity?

Why then do so many recieve little more than the negative side of divinity?

I don't quite understand...

Q:Why then do so many recieve little more than the negative side of divinity?

U:I don't quite understand...

Many innocent, good people in the world live their whole lives with war, terrorism, pestulence, disease etc. - that which you've termed the negative side of divinity. They rarely, if ever, see the positive side.

Is that perfection?

Many innocent, good people in the world live their whole lives with war, terrorism, pestulence, disease etc. - that which you've termed the negative side of divinity. They rarely, if ever, see the positive side.

Is that perfection?

I believe there are several lives, so everyone will see the positive side. Though it is the same self who goes through all these experiences... the sins of the world...

---

Life never ends. Death is the other side of life. A tree inhales the life from the leaves at autumn, and the empty covers will drop and die, but only the empty cover! The life which has animated the leaves rests in the tree and flows out in the spring, again outwardly, and the life dresses itself in new matter, new leaves. Only the external covers change, not life. Life continues to exist because it has always existed.

People call it "God" when the life breathes the life into a person. Like with the leaves, life breathes in the life from the body and person, and dresses itself with a new body, in an everlasting rhythm.

I have tried to see me in the mirror, but I have never seen this "I", which is the invisible life, which animates my body. I can only see two eyes, two black holes, through which "I" look into the world. The self remains invisible, I can only see a manifestation of me, a mask.

From where will I look at the world when these eyes are shut? From two other eyes!

Scott, Thanks for taking up the idea, I am heartened to see that it has some merit!! :)
Now:
"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed does exist if only we allow that definition to exist."
This specultation could also read:

"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed could exist if only we allow that definition to exist."

The one area that I think needs to be clarified is that:

For God to exist must he be able to maintain a single minded focus?
Must God be able to read this post for example?
Is it essential that for God to retain the title of God that he be capable of single minded attention and focuss? In other words does he have to have a human styled perception with it's ability to focuss on a single point in space?

If one removes this need for single focuss and accepts that God is multiplistic in focuss thus rendered impotent of action because of the inability to focus his powers then is what is defined able to be called God?

"He may have all the knowledge, all the awareness and all the power but his inability to focuss his mind on any of those things renders him as ineffective in this reality"

Now to the issue of perfection.

If I have a vessel that can hold my coffee, allowing me to store and drink from it, is that vessel not perfect for the job of storing my coffee and allowing me to drink from it?
If I want something to cut my steak and I have a steak knife that allows me to do so is not that steak knife perfect for the job I require?

Is not perfection of utility, perfection?

The other question I wanted to raise was:

What if God has yet to evolve into a single focussed entity. What if he has yet to become the omnipotent single focussed individual?

Is there a possibility that a conscious, single minded God may yet evolve from this universe?
If so what would he have to be to lay claim to the title of God?

*Situations vacant:
Leader to leader magazine 2005
Wanted
A God for all occassions
Some one to fill a position of the highest responsibility.
Must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound,
Must be stronger that a speeding locomotive
Must be faster than a speeding bullet.
Must be able to decipher the book of revelations.
If you feel you have what is required please
send application to
godrequired@santaclaus.com
quoting reference number
7666.7666.7

*this advertisment is entirely ficticious. All characters portrayed or alluded to are not representative of any known actually living or dead persons.

Scott Myers:

I know it may be a question of semantics and I don't wish to introduce circular thinking on this, but by “existing” do you mean objective reality. It is difficult for obvious reasons furthered by your argument. If it is quantifiable… measurable, has depth, can be touched, then it cannot exist, both perfect and objective simultaneously. Is this why a logical God cannot exist?

No, I do believe a logical God can exist, actually, just not a logical Christian conception of God. Now, I do mean objective reality, as in, the reality all around us, the only "reality" worth speaking of. By virtue of God's omnipresence, God is certainly partially measurable, certainly has partially measurable depth, and is definitely able to be touched. To touch anything inr eality, to be part -of- reality, is to touch God himself by virtue of omnipresence.

Is then space-time perfect in objective reality (existence)? Space-time can break down in some theories, but the realities expressed by such theories do not fit your definition of objective reality do they, so space–time may be the ultimate expression of existence? If not Space-time than what is perfect, a unified theory that can be shown to be objectively true in all disciplines? It seems there is no perfect.

Spacetime is certainly omnipresent in the physical universe, but if there exists something beyond the universe which does not share in spacetime, we'd have to conclude that spacetime not omnipresent, nor the ultimate expression of existence. That being said, I find it hard to imagine energy - which spacetime itself is made up - not existing outside of the universe, if there is such a thing as outside this universe.

A question: In what manner do you refer to theoretical conceptions of "spacetime breaking down"? Do you mean the spiralling towards entropy which might only be solved through a Big Crunch?

Truthseeker:

I see what you are saying.
However, would a state of perfection be permanent? That is, if you attain perfection, would it be a constant unchangin state?

Since almost all perfect attributes that I can think off the top of my head, require attributes of infinity, I would actually claim that no one can attain to perfection, one must -be- perfect. One can never reach infinity through incremental addition or any other method. One must -be- infinity itself to be infinite.

Ellion:

can perfection ever be complete. that is; as a state is reached, previously though of as being the perfect state, there may be a perception of further growth, further work towards a greater being, each plateau of perfection contains the opportunity for even greater perfection. the constant elimination of the lower is the perpetual integration of the higher.

See my reply to Truthseeker for my answer.

c7ityi_:

Power of nothing. You can only do what is perfect. You must follow specific lines.

I never claimed that God had free-will, or even a will at all, but I ask you to define what a "perfect action" would be?

The mind knows everything, since everything is in the mind. It's impossible to be conscious of something outside your consciousness, hence everything is in you, you're just conscious of your unconscious.

Unsubstantiated statement if you're refering to Idealism with "everything is in the mind". See my refutation of the metaphysical system under "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism". However, fi you are not, yes, it is quite impossible to be conscious of something outside one's consciousness, until you gain sensory preception of it, or one uses the power of imagination to create it from thought.

The self is omnipresent. Some creatures are conscious of it...

Proof?

Of course. They are divine things. They are the negative side of divinity. They must exist so that the positive would exist, so that the unity and attraction between them would exist. They come from the same stem. These two sides are as illusional as up and down, and they have no independent existence without the mind. When the negative and positive are united, a "child" is born, and everything except that child dissapears, and that child is nothing. The one who does without doing. The one who works but does not collect the effects of his actions. The presence.

Evil is a force of balance. Good becomes evil if it falls out of balance, and evil becomes good when it falls out of balance. People only want the positive things, so they remain in the neverending circle of life and death. Become the center of the circle where there is no positive or negative, where they are united.

Evil is not evil, good is not good. Perfection is not perfection.

Christ-satan. Evil is the force which makes us hate this world and come back to the "paradise" which is neither negative or positive.

Proof?

Life never ends. Death is the other side of life. A tree inhales the life from the leaves at autumn, and the empty covers will drop and die, but only the empty cover! The life which has animated the leaves rests in the tree and flows out in the spring, again outwardly, and the life dresses itself in new matter, new leaves. Only the external covers change, not life. Life continues to exist because it has always existed.

People call it "God" when the life breathes the life into a person. Like with the leaves, life breathes in the life from the body and person, and dresses itself with a new body, in an everlasting rhythm.

I have tried to see me in the mirror, but I have never seen this "I", which is the invisible life, which animates my body. I can only see two eyes, two black holes, through which "I" look into the world. The self remains invisible, I can only see a manifestation of me, a mask.

From where will I look at the world when these eyes are shut? From two other eyes!

Why does life need a force in order to be animate? Ever consider that life arises from the emergent behaviour of atomic and molecular connections arranged in specific relationships?

Perhaps there is no "invisible I".

Have you any proof for your reincarnation theories?

QuantumQuack:

For God to exist must he be able to maintain a single minded focus?
Must God be able to read this post for example?
Is it essential that for God to retain the title of God that he be capable of single minded attention and focuss? In other words does he have to have a human styled perception with it's ability to focuss on a single point in space?

Would God even need to if he is omniscient?

If I have a vessel that can hold my coffee, allowing me to store and drink from it, is that vessel not perfect for the job of storing my coffee and allowing me to drink from it?
If I want something to cut my steak and I have a steak knife that allows me to do so is not that steak knife perfect for the job I require?

Is not perfection of utility, perfection?

Can another cup hold it better? Can another knife cut it better?

Would God even need to if he is omniscient?
To be potent he would need to be able to focus. With out the ability to focuss his attention he woudl simply be infinite and impotent.
Can another cup hold it better? Can another knife cut it better?
well I guess if the cup was leaking another better cup would be needed....
And if the knife was blunt then maybe a sharper knife woudl be the go.....the question of course is about the perfection of utility.
This computer I am typing on may be old and slow and a little troubled [ hangs quite frequently] however if this letter appears when and where it should then it has performed perfectly in it's utility. in other words the job has been accomplished [ might have taken awhile but it is accomplished]

Perfection of utility in reference to God.

The universe has been created or is created.....perfection of utility. Could a better universe be created? Most likely.....but in so far as being able to be created it has been thus utility of action is perfect.
Is the universe apparently on auto pilot, in that it is automatically evolving with out intervention directly from God.?...hmmmmm....if so, is this not perfection of utility.

I believe there are several lives, so everyone will see the positive side.

That is a very nice fantasy, which would leave one with warm fuzzies all over, especially when their starving, their bodies riddled with disease, living in a war torn country.

Or, so you would make us believe.

Quantum Quack:

To be potent he would need to be able to focus. With out the ability to focuss his attention he woudl simply be infinite and impotent.

Perhaps one can say that God's focus is everywhere direct at the same time, by virtue of omnipresence?

well I guess if the cup was leaking another better cup would be needed....
And if the knife was blunt then maybe a sharper knife woudl be the go.....the question of course is about the perfection of utility.
This computer I am typing on may be old and slow and a little troubled [ hangs quite frequently] however if this letter appears when and where it should then it has performed perfectly in it's utility. in other words the job has been accomplished [ might have taken awhile but it is accomplished]

If a job is truly accomplished, then yes, it has been done so perfectly. An example of an extremely limitd perfection, but yes. However, if one takes into consideration the notion of efficiency, then one eventually comes to realize that perfection is utterly impossible, as something could always do it faster, by virtue of infinitely small points of time.

The universe has been created or is created.....perfection of utility. Could a better universe be created? Most likely.....but in so far as being able to be created it has been thus utility of action is perfect.
Is the universe apparently on auto pilot, in that it is automatically evolving with out intervention directly from God.?...hmmmmm....if so, is this not perfection of utility.

It depends on what the mission criteria was for creating and sustaining the universe, but yes, as it is there, then the universe is perfect in the sense that it fills its duty of being there, if that is all it does.

so we can agree that perfection can and does exist?

This is why I have been so pedantic, as most will say that perfection is an impossible concept. However as I have suggested perfection can be found if one has the perspective to see it.

Quantum Quack:

Yes. Perfection not only exists in the ways I have asserted, but I'll allow for a "lesser" perfection of the "perfection of utility" which you speak of.

I never claimed that God had free-will, or even a will at all, but I ask you to define what a "perfect action" would be?

A perfect action is an action done at the right place and at the right time.

Proof?

You see yourself as "I" and I see myself as "I". So do the rest of the people in the world. Animals, plants and rocks also have the self in them, they're just not conscious of it because of the limits in their body.

Why does life need a force in order to be animate? Ever consider that life arises from the emergent behaviour of atomic and molecular connections arranged in specific relationships?

Particles are also created by something. A cause cannot be visible. A visible thing can't be caused by another visible thing. Life does not arise from combination of particles, a manifestation of life arises from an invisible will to evolve...

---

Everything is in the "mind" (nothing to do with physical "brain") and everything is created by it. It needs no knowledge or senses to do anything, it is the present, invisible, creator of senses and knowledge (effects, illusions: things in the mind) It is nothing where everything comes from. It is nothing, so it is the source of everything. Nothing and everything are the same thing.

Besides, what makes you think "I" need a "body" in order to think for instance? What is a body? A thing in the mind. Where is the mind. Nowhere and everywhere.

That is a very nice fantasy, which would leave one with warm fuzzies all over, especially when their starving, their bodies riddled with disease, living in a war torn country.

I think that's the most logical thing to believe. I don't believe it because it makes me feel good, infact, it makes me feel bad! I would rather want to dissapear after I die, but I don't think that's possible.

Since almost all perfect attributes that I can think off the top of my head, require attributes of infinity, I would actually claim that no one can attain to perfection, one must -be- perfect. One can never reach infinity through incremental addition or any other method. One must -be- infinity itself to be infinite.
Sorry, I should reword my questions...

Does God change?

Does God change?

No.

c7ityi_:

First off, I've been meaning to say this: I love the Rikku icon.

A perfect action is an action done at the right place and at the right time.

How so?

You see yourself as "I" and I see myself as "I". So do the rest of the people in the world. Animals, plants and rocks also have the self in them, they're just not conscious of it because of the limits in their body.

But what does it say more than "cogito ergo sum"?

Particles are also created by something. A cause cannot be visible. A visible thing can't be caused by another visible thing. Life does not arise from combination of particles, a manifestation of life arises from an invisible will to evolve...

A cause cannot be visible? I've hit a baseball with ab at, before. I was the cause of that ball flying over the homerun wall. Would not this be a "visible cause"? Moreover, whilst particles are surely "created" by something, could not - and is it not more likely - that it is from naturalistic causes? And upon what foundation do you assert that life stems from an "invisible will to evolve"?

Everything is in the "mind" (nothing to do with physical "brain") and everything is created by it. It needs no knowledge or senses to do anything, it is the present, invisible, creator of senses and knowledge (effects, illusions: things in the mind) It is nothing where everything comes from. It is nothing, so it is the source of everything. Nothing and everything are the same thing.

Besides, what makes you think "I" need a "body" in order to think for instance? What is a body? A thing in the mind. Where is the mind. Nowhere and everywhere.

Riddle me this: Can you imagine a colour which you have never witnessed? That is, an entirely new colour, not a shade of a prior one? Not something which is a combination of the visible spectrum, but something totally different, such as "blork" or "norgozle"? If not, would not this point towards the incapacity of the mind to think of anything which it does not perceive first in the senses? How can it "create" the senses without knowing of something to sense? And, furthermore, why do you believe the way you do? What leads you to suspect this?

Is a body a thing in the mind? A body is perceived through sense, so fundementally, this points towards something external stimulating this, specifically as if I did not have sense, I would not know a thing. Moreover, what is thought but sensory preception rearranged? Is not thought the chief aspect of the mind?

I think that's the most logical thing to believe. I don't believe it because it makes me feel good, infact, it makes me feel bad! I would rather want to dissapear after I die, but I don't think that's possible.

Why so?

Truthseeker:

Sorry, I should reword my questions...

Does God change?

In that there are changes within an omnipresent God (planets moving, people talking, stars forming), then yes, God changes on that level. On an ultimate level, God is incapable of change. God could not cease to be perfect, or cease to be, or change his form. Part of being an infinite thing would be that it would take an infinite amount of time to change completely, or even partially. Since even a miniscule fraction of infinity is also infinity, nothing can change in infinity without taking another infinity to do so.

Guys....
*sigh....

Ok. Just come here to talk about it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48481

In that there are changes within an omnipresent God (planets moving, people talking, stars forming), then yes, God changes on that level. On an ultimate level, God is incapable of change. God could not cease to be perfect, or cease to be, or change his form. Part of being an infinite thing would be that it would take an infinite amount of time to change completely, or even partially. Since even a miniscule fraction of infinity is also infinity, nothing can change in infinity without taking another infinity to do so.
God doesn't change (at least not in the way we are used to think). I will say it again, in a more clear manner:

layers of existance

Truthseeker:

Can you elaborate on the concept of layers of existence?

Prince James:
In that there are changes within an omnipresent God (planets moving, people talking, stars forming), then yes, God changes on that level. On an ultimate level, God is incapable of change. God could not cease to be perfect, or cease to be, or change his form. Part of being an infinite thing would be that it would take an infinite amount of time to change completely, or even partially. Since even a miniscule fraction of infinity is also infinity, nothing can change in infinity without taking another infinity to do so.
Unfortunately I have many problems with this reasoning. I understand I think where it is coming from and why it is what it is, however the idea of Gods perfection rendering him imperfect whilst true on one level is untrue on the other.

It suggests to me that if God was perfect as you suggest then he is incapable of movement or the change that movement generates. Basically God is unable to act thus he is imperfect and totally paralysed.

The reasoning you are using if I am not mistaken if allowed to flow to it's ultimate conclusion will determine God to be perfectly imperfect.
Just as reality is imperfectly perfect.

Many years ago I spent much time looking at this issue of perfection and realised that perfection lies in the imperfect. This ties in with how suffering [ imperfection] is a necesssary fact of existance.

Now I ask you as a leading question, "Does God suffer?"

My answer would be yes, very much so......does this make him imperfect ?

There is an underlying understnding to this that suppoorts the notion of imperfection as being perfection.
One can use the issue of symmetry as an example.

The universe is not perfectly symmetrical. In fact it has a form of asymetrical symmetry. Using the example of as seemingly lopsided tree or a cloud in the sky or the stars seen at night. All have a symmetry which we can feel but not a symmetry we can determine geometrically.

so pefection lies in asymmetrical symmetry. The balance of or in undefined form. the eccentricity of Yin and Yang. The need for perpetual imbalance to be perpetually balanced.

The notion of God as perfectly dysfunctional by virtue of his perfection is an unreasonable assessment in my view.

I have often wanted to ground the notions of what God is.
Does he pick his nose? was one thread I started a while ago.
Does he have a reason to be called a he? [ does he have testicles and if so why does he have testicles?]

I guess I feel that for God to be real he has to be real and not some flimsy of perfection we would like him to be hence my criticism of our definitions rendering God an impossibility.

So for God to exist he has to be asymmetrically symmetrical or should I say an entity that must change, thus he must evolve. If he can not change because of our defnition of perfection then he can not exist as an animated entity and only exist as a suspended entity devoid of activity [ including thought] and I am afraid this is IMO far from perfect.

If God is all there is and all there is is God then God must evolve just like all there is evolves.

Quantum Quack:

Unfortunately I have many problems with this reasoning. I understand I think where it is coming from and why it is what it is, however the idea of Gods perfection rendering him imperfect whilst true on one level is untrue on the other.

I don't think I ever claimed that God's perfection renders him imperfect at all? I find this an absurdity. There is nothing, itself, wrong with being unable to change, specifically if any change would destroy perfection, and hence it would be a degeneration.

It suggests to me that if God was perfect as you suggest then he is incapable of movement or the change that movement generates. Basically God is unable to act thus he is imperfect and totally paralysed.

His ability to change would be restricted to the parts of his whole. That is, his movement would be the movement of atoms, people, celestial objects, et cetera, but he himself, as at otality, could not move at all, as to move would be to be non-infinite, to change to be non-eternal and perfect, et cetera.

The reasoning you are using if I am not mistaken if allowed to flow to it's ultimate conclusion will determine God to be perfectly imperfect.
Just as reality is imperfectly perfect.

Might you demonstrate what is, in essence, so imperfect about this perfection?

Many years ago I spent much time looking at this issue of perfection and realised that perfection lies in the imperfect. This ties in with how suffering [ imperfection] is a necesssary fact of existance.

Voltaire would argue otherwise, as would the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius, though the latter two in different ways than the French infidel. Voltaire could imagine a world, contrary to the claims of ludicrous theodical propositions, that the world could be monumentally better than it is, whilst both the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius speak of extinguishing desire so that suffering does not result, as all suffering stems ultimately from attachment.

Now I ask you as a leading question, "Does God suffer?"

It is impossible for God to suffer, as to suffer is to lose something and to be altered, and to lose and to be altered is imperfect.

There is an underlying understnding to this that suppoorts the notion of imperfection as being perfection.
One can use the issue of symmetry as an example.

The universe is not perfectly symmetrical. In fact it has a form of asymetrical symmetry. Using the example of as seemingly lopsided tree or a cloud in the sky or the stars seen at night. All have a symmetry which we can feel but not a symmetry we can determine geometrically.

so pefection lies in asymmetrical symmetry. The balance of or in undefined form. the eccentricity of Yin and Yang. The need for perpetual imbalance to be perpetually balanced.

Could not one imagine a perfectly spherical object, for instance? I believe neutron star exteriors, in fact, correspond to a perfect sphere within an atom's width.

Does he have a reason to be called a he? [ does he have testicles and if so why does he have testicles?]

No, it just helps us to use "he" instead of "it". "She" would be perfectly acceptable, also. I simply use "he" based on my Western cultural tradition, which has always anthromorphized God as a male. Though of course, you weren't actually asking me this question, but I thought I'd answer nonetheless.

I guess I feel that for God to be real he has to be real and not some flimsy of perfection we would like him to be hence my criticism of our definitions rendering God an impossibility.

Tell me, do you think logic is real?

So for God to exist he has to be asymmetrically symmetrical or should I say an entity that must change, thus he must evolve. If he can not change because of our defnition of perfection then he can not exist as an animated entity and only exist as a suspended entity devoid of activity [ including thought] and I am afraid this is IMO far from perfect.

I would argue that GOd is really not a being at all, but existence itself, due to many contradictions in thinking of a being with his attributes.

If God is all there is and all there is is God then God must evolve just like all there is evolves.

Riddle me this: All things change, yes? But what does not change? Energy. Energy shifts form, but remains energy. Its identity as energy, its existence as energy, is eternal. Perhaps we can relate God to this. God contains change within him on finitescales, but is himself not changed, due to necessary perfection and eternity.

Can you elaborate on the concept of layers of existence?
God is in another dimension, different from ours. A dimension where time does not exist, where there's only a "now". Time is very relative to space. You cannot be in two places at the same time. And a moment can only be perceived in a single portion of the total space of the universe. Well, God doesn't deal with that. He only lives in a NOW which is EVERYWHERE. So we are in a "layer of existence" and He is in another one where every point which exists is everywhere.

Who talked about this before....? Leibniz.....
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm

Take a look at his "monads" concept....
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

I would argue that God is really not a being at all, but existence itself, due to many contradictions in thinking of a being with his attributes.
ah yes a panthesistic perspective that I myself have argued for many a time. [ And still do ] however if he is existance then he must be changing and also must be suffering entopy thus even as we speak God is dying.

If he is dying then he is changing. and perfection as you define it, is a nul concept.

According to science [entropy] even God by your definition is or would be seeking sustainable success.
Mind you I happen to agree in tha main with panthenism. I find it a much more holistic approach to the issue of God and existence.

Voltaire would argue otherwise, as would the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius, though the latter two in different ways than the French infidel. Voltaire could imagine a world, contrary to the claims of ludicrous theodical propositions, that the world could be monumentally better than it is, whilst both the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius speak of extinguishing desire so that suffering does not result, as all suffering stems ultimately from attachment.

IMO Buddha and Marcus came close but failed. They were simply wrong.
As I have contended in your other thread Samsara can not be defeated but only mastered. It is only after it is mastered that the choice of permanent oblivion is possible.
But I also accept that I am taking a contraversial position that will gain no immediate satisfaction.

Truthseeker:

God is in another dimension, different from ours. A dimension where time does not exist, where there's only a "now". Time is very relative to space. You cannot be in two places at the same time. And a moment can only be perceived in a single portion of the total space of the universe. Well, God doesn't deal with that. He only lives in a NOW which is EVERYWHERE. So we are in a "layer of existence" and He is in another one where every point which exists is everywhere.

But if God is the universe, and there exists in the universe time, God must therefore exist within time, nay? Upon what foundation does the assertion that he is dimensionless rest?

ah yes a panthesistic perspective that I myself have argued for many a time. [ And still do ] however if he is existance then he must be changing and also must be suffering entopy thus even as we speak God is dying.

Entropy does not destroy energy, nor in an infinite reality (which reality must be, even if the universe might be finite or might not be) can entropy ever hope to overcome infinity, by virtue that infinity is ever infinitely away from anything finite.

IMO Buddha and Marcus came close but failed. They were simply wrong.
As I have contended in your other thread Samsara can not be defeated but only mastered. It is only after it is mastered that the choice of permanent oblivion is possible.

Come to think of it, I really need to check on the Eastern Philosophy threads I started. I've been somewhat ignoring them, hoping they'd grow for a while so I'd have a bunch of stuff to reply to. Eastern Philosophy tends to be our slowest forum here on SciForums.

Now, as regards the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius: If samsara fundementally works via suffering, to rob it of its ability to suffer is somewhat of a destruction, is it not?

Prince_James,

I might reply to that later, but I leave you with a thought.

Do you consider the "NOW moment" and infinite and infinitesimaly small point in time?

Now, as regards the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius: If samsara fundementally works via suffering, to rob it of its ability to suffer is somewhat of a destruction, is it not?
One thing worth keeping in mind when talking about samsara is that samsara is a universal concept. It involves the entirety of existence not just an individual. To defeat samsara you have to defeat the entire existence.
The mere desire to end desire, the mere whisper of thought immediately reinforces Samsara. Thus we have a paradox.
The taoist trap comes to mind. [ wesmorris ]

The only way to destroy Samsara is when you are unconscious or dead and of course when you are unconscious or dead you can't do anything except wake up or be reborn.....thus Samsara is not able to be destroyed but only mastered. Mastery is not just individual mastery either but universally mastered.

Now to the issue of the universes demise. I understand entropy to be the balancing of energy. The universe will become universally the same temperature...thoughout generally speaking.
Now from what I understand about the need for imbalance to maintain movement and change this evening out of energy leads to perfect balance.

Once perfect balance is achieved al movement stops. Once all movement stops there is no change. once change stops the universe reduces to a zero point dimension. a zero point dimension is absolute nothingness.
To remove suffering is to remove this desire to relieve suffering, remove the desire to relieve suffering and movement stops, etc etc...and abolsute zero dimensionality is achieved.

The attempt to remove the need to relieve suffering in it's self is a desire to relieve suffering, which as far as the universe is concerned is a good thing as no Buddhist monk is going to destroy the universe no matter how hard he tries. :) and rebirth due to his desire to null desire is guaranteed.

The only way to avoid the paradox of desire is to master sufference. If one masters sufference absolutely one has achieved corporal immortality. The body does not suffer aging and thus does not die.


To sum up:
If Buddha had been successful in his attempts to defeat re-birth he would not have died. [ or needed to die ] as death then becomes his choice and not a samsara necessity. If absolute death becomes a true choice then he has the universes fate in his hands.

Truthseeker:

Do you consider the "NOW moment" and infinite and infinitesimaly small point in time?

Yes.

Quantum Quack:

One thing worth keeping in mind when talking about samsara is that samsara is a universal concept. It involves the entirety of existence not just an individual. To defeat samsara you have to defeat the entire existence.
The mere desire to end desire, the mere whisper of thought immediately reinforces Samsara. Thus we have a paradox.
The taoist trap comes to mind. [ wesmorris ]

Touche. One cannot defeat it for all beings, so one cannot defeat it fully, but to defeat it individually is achieved by extinguishing desire. For oneself, one can defeat it.

The desire to end desire is a desire in itself, but eventually when one attains to a non-attachment to even the desire to end desire itself, and to simply undesire, that desire fades itself. It starts, paradoxically, with desire, but ends with non-desire. One might think of it this way: Non-desire is the only thing one can desire which one can get completely. The one water to quench all thirsts.

Now to the issue of the universes demise. I understand entropy to be the balancing of energy. The universe will become universally the same temperature...thoughout generally speaking.
Now from what I understand about the need for imbalance to maintain movement and change this evening out of energy leads to perfect balance.

But if such perfect balance eventually fails, via the Laws of Thermodynamics, it cannot be said to be a perfect balance at all.

Once perfect balance is achieved al movement stops. Once all movement stops there is no change. once change stops the universe reduces to a zero point dimension. a zero point dimension is absolute nothingness.
To remove suffering is to remove this desire to relieve suffering, remove the desire to relieve suffering and movement stops, etc etc...and abolsute zero dimensionality is achieved.

I would argue that by virtue of having nothingenss, you automaticaly have somethingness, so that an end to existence cannot ever occur, precisely because to be non-existent is to automatically create existence and vice-versa.

Prince_James:

Touche. One cannot defeat it for all beings, so one cannot defeat it fully, but to defeat it individually is achieved by extinguishing desire. For oneself, one can defeat it.
At this level there is no such thing as individual you are either a reflection of the universe or you are not. if you exist then you must do so as a reflection of all that surrounds you, thus it is your reflected awareness of other persons and animated life forms desire that is also a part of the extinguishing of desire.

The desire to end desire is a desire in itself, but eventually when one attains to a non-attachment to even the desire to end desire itself, and to simply undesire, that desire fades itself. It starts, paradoxically, with desire, but ends with non-desire. One might think of it this way: Non-desire is the only thing one can desire which one can get completely. The one water to quench all thirsts.
Is breathing not a desire to relieve suffering?
Stop breathing for a while and see what I mean......so to extinguish desire means to stop breathing...hmmmm....sounds ok....but does nothing about Samsara.

But if such perfect balance eventually fails, via the Laws of Thermodynamics, it cannot be said to be a perfect balance at all.
When two opposing charges anhilate each other what do you have left?
I would contend perfect balance thus nothingness. It is only the difference between charges [ energy ] that promotes movement and change.
Analogy:
The change potential of 12 volt car battery becomes nothing once it has reached balance. The energy inbalance has created change. when it is balanced no further change is possible.

I would argue that by virtue of having nothingness, you automaticaly have somethingness, so that an end to existence cannot ever occur, precisely because to be non-existent is to automatically create existence and vice-versa.

But this is the nature of samsara - dualism "nothing-something" in absolute, nothingness has no somethingness. It is beyond the conception of infinite somethingness. [ you may recall an earlier discussion ]

The thing to realise is that we all achieve nothingness when we beome unconscious. [sleep] Does this defeat Samsara?
If not How do you suggest just being unconscious of desire is going to?

First off, I've been meaning to say this: I love the Rikku icon.

Ehm.. thanks. You said that about the Yuffie icon too, I think.... when people say something good about me, I have no idea what I would say.

How so?

... if you speak at the right moment, at the right place, it is a "divine" action. But if you speak at the wrong moment, at the wrong place, speaking becomes a "satanic" action. Right and wrong are decided by "spacetime".

Like... if a word can save a life, but you keep silent, silence becomes satanic. But if you keep silent when words can hurt, or are unnecessary, silence becomes divine. There are no evil powers, only evil use of them.

It is only possible to speak if silence exists. The speaking must be separated from the unmanifested speaking which is silence (nothingness).

Everything you see, is visible only because it has been separated from its complementary half. This is the way with the universe also. Earth has attraction because the other negative, unmanifested side of it tries to unite with it.

All negative and positive things are as illusional as up and down. The mind creates up and down.

A cause cannot be visible? I've hit a baseball with ab at, before. I was the cause of that ball flying over the homerun wall.

If you want to find what the cause is, you have to go deeper. You said that YOU were the cause of that ball flying. Are YOU visible? Is your present will visible?

The cause is not something that happens in the past, it is continuous. If the effect is present, the cause is present.

An origin is not a cause (even the triggering factor is not the cause). Both origins and triggering factors take place in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.

Everything past is an effect, and an effect is the creation of the cause. When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed.

The cause is more like a signal (illusion of the visible world) which is sent into a television (body)

Moreover, whilst particles are surely "created" by something, could not - and is it not more likely - that it is from naturalistic causes?

Naturalistic? What "natural cause" is there before there are any kind of particles? By thinking about "magnetism", we can solve the most mysteries of the universe.

And upon what foundation do you assert that life stems from an "invisible will to evolve"?

Why does a seed grow when you plant it on the ground? Why do magnets (particles) attract and repel? Why are you trying to reach something?

How and why would an explosion (Big bang) in nothingness create birds singing in the trees, and creatures able to think and reason?

How could the universe be logical if it wasn't in our mind (creator of logic)?

Without a deep "will" (to unite and become more "whole") within matter, it is impossible to explain anything.

How can it "create" the senses without knowing of something to sense?

If the "mind", "God", the "self", the "will", had senses, it would be unable to create such a perfect world. Perfection is only possible by something entirely unconscious. If humans were omnipotent, they would destroy the world instantly because they have senses (consciousness, limitations)

The power which created the world thinks nothing. It feels nothing. It only is. Consider lower species like animals and plants. They are much more perfect than we are, because they are not as aware of their senses as we are. They are not aware of a "mind". Atoms are even more perfect. But the most perfect is the smallest one, the infinitely small, which gives particles their source of energy.

If you think about what you're doing, you make more mistakes. If you feel, you do less mistakes. If you are, you do no mistakes. When you're out for a walk, you don't think about it. If you do, you might even stumble. But you no longer need to think about walking because you have learned it, you don't have to feel either, you ARE walking. To learn and understand something completely means that we become it.

If we are good people, we don't talk about it. If we are real liars, we don't need to talk about it, since we are it. Thinking is a process between knowledge and not-knowledge. It is only necessary if we haven't reached the goal yet. God knows everything. What reason would he have to think if he knows everything? What could he possibly "think" about?

Nothing.

And, furthermore, why do you believe the way you do?

I don't "believe" or disbelieve what I say, I just say it. It's no more true than anything else, it's just a different perspective. To know something, I have to know everything, and if I know everything, I don't need to talk about it.

Quantum Quack:

At this level there is no such thing as individual you are either a reflection of the universe or you are not. if you exist then you must do so as a reflection of all that surrounds you, thus it is your reflected awareness of other persons and animated life forms desire that is also a part of the extinguishing of desire.

I would disagree. Can not one perceive another's motives without sharing them? To understand what they think, but not feel the same? Similarly, though we might only know we exist via reflection through the senses, we do not share in their existence beyond our sensory connection, or on a much more subtle level.

Is breathing not a desire to relieve suffering?
Stop breathing for a while and see what I mean......so to extinguish desire means to stop breathing...hmmmm....sounds ok....but does nothing about Samsara.

To be attached to breathing would be a desire to relieve suffering, but if one simply breathes, with no desire at all - which we do all the time, when we do not consciously think of breathing - then one is not, in fact, relieving any suffering.

When two opposing charges anhilate each other what do you have left?
I would contend perfect balance thus nothingness. It is only the difference between charges [ energy ] that promotes movement and change.
Analogy:
The change potential of 12 volt car battery becomes nothing once it has reached balance. The energy inbalance has created change. when it is balanced no further change is possible.

Whilst I do not like to be excessively nitpicky, you are actually a bit incorrect: When two opposing charges annihilate, they return to energy equivalent to the equation E = MC2. And if you meant balance in that the charges inside it would annihilate (which they couldn't), then no, you'd have actually all the energy there. If you meant it was equal with all else, then ane qual amount of energy would exist in the battery as it does in all other things, not nothingness, but most assuredly infinitely small.

But this is the nature of samsara - dualism "nothing-something" in absolute, nothingness has no somethingness. It is beyond the conception of infinite somethingness. [ you may recall an earlier discussion ]

I both agree and disagree. In the sense that somethingness and nothingness are polar opposites, yes, I whole heartedly agree, but I would assert that by virtue of their polar opposites, both create the other.

Riddle me this: Does not one automatically have long if one thinks of short? That in order for there to be "short", there must also be "long"?

The thing to realise is that we all achieve nothingness when we beome unconscious. [sleep] Does this defeat Samsara?
If not How do you suggest just being unconscious of desire is going to?

Naturally, no, sleep does not defeat samsara. Sleep is a state of temporary unconsciousness, where desire no longer exists on conscious thought, but is not extinguished. The state of non-desire spoken off in Buddhism and similar traditions, is one of a total abandonment of desire. Desire might be equated to a weed: Conscious desire is the above ground part, which is cut away through sleep, but the root, being not dealt with when one can, grows anew upon waking. /If, howver, one destroys the root, one never awakens to desire again.

I will attempt to answer in more detail later but can I leave you with this question to ponder on:
What prompts the body to breathe whilst asleep?
Could this not be linked directly to the desire for survival.
Nulling desire is a considerably more difficult exercise than we think is my estimation. not only conscious desirre but sub and unconscious desire as well needs to be nulified.
Is this possible to achieve and still alive?
the life/death paradox comes to the fore if one considers that you have to be dead to learn how to die.

also you may be able mitigate your current desire but you would have to nullify all past deisre as well. So you would have to have no memory of what you were doing or attempting to do. so the paradox again looms large. Is it possible to give yourself total amneasia by force of desire [will]?
keeping in mind we are talking about defeating samsara and not just a path towards enlightenment, as these IMO are very different ambitions.

Quantum Quack:

I will attempt to answer in more detail later but can I leave you with this question to ponder on:
What prompts the body to breathe whilst asleep?
Could this not be linked directly to the desire for survival.
Nulling desire is a considerably more difficult exercise than we think is my estimation. not only conscious desirre but sub and unconscious desire as well needs to be nulified.
Is this possible to achieve and still alive?
the life/death paradox comes to the fore if one considers that you have to be dead to learn how to die.

One might think of breathing when asleep like one thinks of any deterministic process. It is not the conscious mind that provokes breathing in sleep, but simply the non-conscious deterministic processes of the body that does.

Moreover, a state of non-desire is that of a state of non-attachment. Non-attachment requirse one to neither care to breath or not, to simply allow what may come to pass and not cling to it at all. Thus one can speak of how the body simply does what it is programmed t do, and that one clings not to the process at all.

also you may be able mitigate your current desire but you would have to nullify all past deisre as well. So you would have to have no memory of what you were doing or attempting to do. so the paradox again looms large. Is it possible to give yourself total amneasia by force of desire [will]?

Past desires mitigate themselves through having been fullfilled and no longer presently existing. They are also dealt with by non-attachment of caring whether they were fullfilled ot nor fullfilled, existent or non-existent. A state of pure non-attachment is basically ultimate apathetic serenity.

keeping in mind we are talking about defeating samsara and not just a path towards enlightenment, as these IMO are very different ambitions.

Defeating samsara for everyone else is impossible. One cannot do anything for another person but point towards what they can do to themselves. Defeating samsara for oneself, however, is the same as enlightenment.

By c7ityi_:

“You see yourself as "I" and I see myself as "I". So do the rest of the people in the world. Animals, plants and rocks also have the self in them, they're just not conscious of it because of the limits in their body.”

This statement seems to be in conflict with the base of your worldview. Let me share with you my assumptions; actually you said as much…

Would you not prefer to say that it is our minds, self-consciousness and it is the “I” that limits us from complete bliss… from being one with the One (unconsciousness); which is simply being; and the ultimate reflection?

Isn’t the whole; to use one of your quotes, the only God? “If the "mind", "God", the "self", the "will", had senses, it would be unable to create such a perfect world. Perfection is only possible by something entirely unconscious. If humans were omnipotent, they would destroy the world instantly because they have senses (consciousness, limitations)”


So is it the inanimate objects like rocks and elements that have limitations due to their lack of consciousness, or is it consciousness that limits us alone in contrast to the ultimate existence of just being?; or neither (per se ‘an illusion of right and wrong’)… in which case there should be no discussion of any of this; since it is all so futile?

So, retract the assertion that rocks plants and animals are somehow “limited” due to their unconsciousness. They are, according to your apparent worldview, more adept and more evolved than our silly human conversations of the “I”. Does the "I" exist in any dimension, or in any reality; or should it?

Please remedy, or enter bliss for our sakes. We like to wonder and think on things… highly un-evolved we realize!

Another gem... "I don't "believe" or disbelieve what I say, I just say it. It's no more true than anything else, it's just a different perspective. To know something, I have to know everything, and if I know everything, I don't need to talk about it."

Try this... stop talking; then we should all be in in awe of your "know everything" state of being. Then we can review all of your posts to see why we should all keep quiet, and turn our brains off.




As for the rest of you... I think the perfection conversation does belong in the new thread; and you are moving far too fast for some of us mortals.. Well; me for sure! I can barely read it all fast enough to hear it?

But; then again... don't slow down on my account; it's very good conversation.

Quantum Quack:



One might think of breathing when asleep like one thinks of any deterministic process. It is not the conscious mind that provokes breathing in sleep, but simply the non-conscious deterministic processes of the body that does.

Moreover, a state of non-desire is that of a state of non-attachment. Non-attachment requirse one to neither care to breath or not, to simply allow what may come to pass and not cling to it at all. Thus one can speak of how the body simply does what it is programmed t do, and that one clings not to the process at all.



Past desires mitigate themselves through having been fullfilled and no longer presently existing. They are also dealt with by non-attachment of caring whether they were fullfilled ot nor fullfilled, existent or non-existent. A state of pure non-attachment is basically ultimate apathetic serenity.



Defeating samsara for everyone else is impossible. One cannot do anything for another person but point towards what they can do to themselves. Defeating samsara for oneself, however, is the same as enlightenment.

are you talking from experience or are you quoting other sources?
If you feel the Buddhist approach is successful on what basis is this founded?

Is there any proof that rebirth has been defeated by anyone?

The thing that is worth noting is that samsara is what we might call a devine construct. It is a fundemental that existence or God if you like has created. Do you honestly believe that it can be avoided with out coming into direct conflict with that existence or God?

And also do you believe that it is only the intellect or should I say conscious will that is involved in the cycle of Samsara? If so on what basis is this belief founded?
Also is not consciousness itself a product of sufference. The need to wake and have food, to move those aching limbs the desire to avoid bedsores etc.

Even waking to consciousness is a product of desire is it not?

So how can desire be nullified if one is conscious? if consciousness itself is driven by desire.

How is the paradoxed desire for consciousness/unconsciousness avoided?
The desire for sleep in itself is a conscious desire yes?

*Situations vacant:
Leader to leader magazine 2005
Wanted
A God for all occassions
Some one to fill a position of the highest responsibility.
Must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound,
Must be stronger that a speeding locomotive
Must be faster than a speeding bullet.
Must be able to decipher the book of revelations.
If you feel you have what is required please
send application to
godrequired@santaclaus.com
quoting reference number
7666.7666.7

*this advertisment is entirely ficticious. All characters portrayed or alluded to are not representative of any known actually living or dead persons.

This was the most entertaining piece in this entire thread... And I have been very happy so far to see where this lead. I am even happier that no one challenged the fact that I made no attempt to answer the question posed.

God can be; and must be… all knowing “omniscient” as PJ would say; else he is of no purpose to my ‘I’. If I cannot look in the mirror; find my-‘self’ wanting and have nowhere to turn ‘for human frailty’s sake’ than He does not qualify for the job. He must know me better than I know my ‘I’; or there is no God.

I concede that the question posed was not; ‘whether or not’ He exists, but what if; and what does that mean if? Have we created God in our discussion… certainly not.


Webster says,

“god; noun. Someone considered to be extremely important or valuable; an image, symbol, or statue of such a being.”
And:
“God; noun. The supreme being; ruler of life and the universe.”

Webster is Western perhaps, but I must concur. The lower case “‘g’od” can be anything we would like to make it… be it the entirety; one element or ideal, but the “‘G’od” I speak of does have characteristics and traits somewhat knowable and concludes that my ‘I’ is equal to your ‘I’ at the very essence of ‘being’.

If a god is not the supreme ruler of life and the universe, and cannot simultaneously know the ‘I’ better than I; than he cannot have “what is required” to fulfill the position of God.


PJ?
What of your theology?

If????????

Then what? and do we agree (as per my potifications)... if in fact; God?

This was the most entertaining piece in this entire thread... And I have been very happy so far to see where this lead. I am even happier that no one challenged the fact that I made no attempt to answer the question posed.

God can be; and must be… all knowing “omniscient” as PJ would say; else he is of no purpose to my ‘I’. If I cannot look in the mirror; find my-‘self’ wanting and have nowhere to turn ‘for human frailty’s sake’ than He does not qualify for the job. He must know me better than I know my ‘I’; or there is no God.

I concede that the question posed was not; ‘whether or not’ He exists, but what if; and what does that mean if? Have we created God in our discussion… certainly not.


Webster says,

“god; noun. Someone considered to be extremely important or valuable; an image, symbol, or statue of such a being.”
And:
“God; noun. The supreme being; ruler of life and the universe.”

Webster is Western perhaps, but I must concur. The lower case “‘g’od” can be anything we would like to make it… be it the entirety; one element or ideal, but the “‘G’od” I speak of does have characteristics and traits somewhat knowable and concludes that my ‘I’ is equal to your ‘I’ at the very essence of ‘being’.

If a god is not the supreme ruler of life and the universe, and cannot simultaneously know the ‘I’ better than I; than he cannot have “what is required” to fulfill the position of God.

well maybe we can look at it this way:
I ask you the following questions:
1] How much knowledge do you know you hold?
possible answer: 50 years of learning and understanding.
2] Can you tell me all your knowledge in an instant of time?
possible answer: No it would take much time to tell you all I know.
3] If you had infinite knowledge of everything how long would it take to convey that knowledge to someone else?
possible answer: It would take eternity or an infinite amount of time.
4] If I said to you you awareness and knowledge was perfect and infinite but you have only realised 50 years worth would you consider yourself as omniscient?
Possible answer: Yes, but I have not had time to realise it.
5] If I said your awareness was omni and used the same logic would you agree that you are omni aware?
Possible answer : Yes
6] so would you agree that it is only your mortality that disallows the realisation of your omniness?
possible answer:?????

Just thought I'd throw a little potential into the scenario...maybe broaden the topic.

the point being that can we consider ourselves to be Gods by definition of omniscience and omniwareness or omni presence even though we have not realised it?
And even so does this omniness qualify us as Gods?

Quantum Quack:

Excellent broadening; and I am in no state to answer bullet by bullet, but when I had been ‘illumined’ by God, He gave me years of knowledge in a brief moment of time. It was an overwhelming experience and I, for a moment, knew that there was only one who could know so much… about my world, my self, my experiences etc. Also… the knowledge that had been transcended in a moment of time (maybe in a zero quantifiable now) was of invaluable consequence; to myself, my still future family, many whom I had known along the way, and many whom I would later meet in life experiences. (oh, 33 year so far)

Also… the knowledge gained in a brief moment of connection and (ultimate consciousness); took some years to decipher and truly fully realize; which may not yet be wholly so!

So your questions are valid based on my own personal experience and have some validity as it concerns the ‘omni’ attributes of God.

Onwards!

"And even so does this omniness qualify us as Gods? "

I would say as the simplton, no! Because... Even though I have experienced some transendend knowledge from what I believe (know) to be the one God... it is mostly focused on one area ;aspect of life in general. It was certainly not the totality that I have simply not yet realized. There are limitations to individual knowledge; else we would fail to be 'individual'; no?

Quantum Quack:

Excellent broadening; and I am in no state to answer bullet by bullet, but when I had been ‘illumined’ by God, He gave me years of knowledge in a brief moment of time. It was an overwhelming experience and I, for a moment, knew that there was only one who could know so much… about my world, my self, my experiences etc. Also… the knowledge that had been transcended in a moment of time (maybe in a zero quantifiable now) was of invaluable consequence; to myself, my still future family, many whom I had known along the way, and many whom I would later meet in life experiences. (oh, 33 year so far)

Also… the knowledge gained in a brief moment of connection and (ultimate consciousness); took some years to decipher and truly fully realize; which may not yet be wholly so!

So your questions are valid based on my own personal experience and have some validity as it concerns the ‘omni’ attributes of God.

Onwards!

"And even so does this omniness qualify us as Gods? "

I would say as the simplton, no! Because... Even though I have experienced some transendend knowledge from what I believe (know) to be the one God... it is mostly focused on one area ;aspect of life in general. It was certainly not the totality that I have simply not yet realized. There are limitations to individual knowledge; else we would fail to be 'individual'; no?
I must admit I have had simlar experiences however I did not attribute this knowledge to God I attributed it to my own unconscious potential. Which of course is now a consious potential.
I am not convinced that a loss of individuality is to be feared by gaining omniscience. Certainly individuality would need ot be redefined.

Yes.
Well, that's my point. ;)

Yaba Daba :m:

c7ityi_:

... if you speak at the right moment, at the right place, it is a "divine" action. But if you speak at the wrong moment, at the wrong place, speaking becomes a "satanic" action. Right and wrong are decided by "spacetime".

Like... if a word can save a life, but you keep silent, silence becomes satanic. But if you keep silent when words can hurt, or are unnecessary, silence becomes divine. There are no evil powers, only evil use of them.

So no actions are inherently evil? Okay, I can concur with that.

It is only possible to speak if silence exists. The speaking must be separated from the unmanifested speaking which is silence (nothingness).

Whilst this is a bit nitpicky, is it too illogical to conceive of a cewaseless sound language?

Everything you see, is visible only because it has been separated from its complementary half. This is the way with the universe also. Earth has attraction because the other negative, unmanifested side of it tries to unite with it.

Might you elaborate on the foundation and necessity of this?

All negative and positive things are as illusional as up and down. The mind creates up and down.

In that up and down are a relation relative to viewer, yes. But not in that two objects cannot be said to exist on a space-grid at different points.

If you want to find what the cause is, you have to go deeper. You said that YOU were the cause of that ball flying. Are YOU visible? Is your present will visible?

Internalized in my thoughts, often, but perceivable by the thinker, but not necessarily "visible". But once will begins to impact external reality, will becomes manifest in action of intelligent beings.

The cause is not something that happens in the past, it is continuous. If the effect is present, the cause is present.

That which is continuous must, by definition, have a position in the past as well as the present. For instance: A baseball game. When one reaches the 9th inning, the baseball game's continuous identity's necessitates that 8 prior innings have occured.

Cause and effect can be plotted on a 4 dimensional grid (three spatial + 1 time) and only in the moments where cause is being generated into effect by contact are cause and effect truly in the same moment .

An origin is not a cause (even the triggering factor is not the cause). Both origins and triggering factors take place in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.

After the cause has passed, the effect can still remain. Newtonian Law of Inertia: "An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force."

Everything past is an effect, and an effect is the creation of the cause. When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed.

Yes, one can only see what is past, as it takes sometime for light to shine off it and hit the eye and all that jazz. Now this is all well and good, save you seem to forget that the entire process of cause-and-effect follows this, and thus one can see the string actions taking place in the past and determine which is cause and which is effect and measure that through various means.

Naturalistic? What "natural cause" is there before there are any kind of particles? By thinking about "magnetism", we can solve the most mysteries of the universe.

Particles are comprised of energy. You will note that the electromagnetic force works through energy (charge and perhaps virtual photons). Ontop of that, I would argue for metaphysical natural causes rooted in logical necessity.

Why does a seed grow when you plant it on the ground? Why do magnets (particles) attract and repel? Why are you trying to reach something?

A seed grows into a plant when put into the ground because of the processes encoded in the DNA which can manifest and sustain themselves when specific conditions of life-sustainment are met. There is no will, conscious or otherwise, simply the natural processes which stem from emergent behaviour of atoms connecting into molecules, which in turn form more complex compounds....

Particles attract and repel based on the electromagnetic force manifested in charge. You will note that some particles - neutrons, for instance - are electrically neutral, and do not have charge.

I try to reach something based on will, yes. But I am an intelligent creature, capable of having a will.

How and why would an explosion (Big bang) in nothingness create birds singing in the trees, and creatures able to think and reason?

Emergent behaviour resulting from the properties of energy.

How could the universe be logical if it wasn't in our mind (creator of logic)?

Creator of logic? I would argue that the universe would be as such. It is not our mind which, inherently, requirse logic, but reality itself. A = A does not only make sense, but it is impossible to not conceive of such with the reality around us.

I would also ask you this: How could our mind create logic if it had no knowledge of logic?

Without a deep "will" (to unite and become more "whole") within matter, it is impossible to explain anything.

Not at all. It is just a return to Scholasticist Aristolean notions. People used to believe fire and air rose because "everything likes to go home, and that is their home".

If the "mind", "God", the "self", the "will", had senses, it would be unable to create such a perfect world. Perfection is only possible by something entirely unconscious. If humans were omnipotent, they would destroy the world instantly because they have senses (consciousness, limitations)

We have a perfect world? In what sense? In that it works? Yes. It has the "perfection of utility" which Quantum Quack speaks of. But actually, overall, I agree with you. Consciousness couldn't possibly have produced this world (due consciousness requiring sensory preception and sensory preception requiring things) only logical necessity. Consciousness only arose much later, when the first conditions for life developed.

The power which created the world thinks nothing. It feels nothing. It only is. Consider lower species like animals and plants. They are much more perfect than we are, because they are not as aware of their senses as we are. They are not aware of a "mind". Atoms are even more perfect. But the most perfect is the smallest one, the infinitely small, which gives particles their source of energy.

Animals have are not aware of their senses? Nonsense. They show varying degrees of intelligent reasoning, even down to the smallest bacterium realizing how to get food, and make conscious choices of actions and other such things. Plants are even conscious on some levels, if recent studies seem to demonstrate they have some capacity to feel things.

There is a big contradiction in this all, though. If all things are created unconsciously, then why do you say the mind creates all? Unconscious is the opposite of mind. INtelligence cannot be unconscious.

If you think about what you're doing, you make more mistakes. If you feel, you do less mistakes. If you are, you do no mistakes. When you're out for a walk, you don't think about it. If you do, you might even stumble. But you no longer need to think about walking because you have learned it, you don't have to feel either, you ARE walking. To learn and understand something completely means that we become it.

I disagree whole heartedly. No action is possible if one simply "is", andi f one simply "feels", one ends up with ridiculous amounts of mistakes (try to "feel" your way through a math problem). It is only through thought that any action is possible and the more critical and precise the thought is, the better the action.

It takes conscious action to walk. It is a completely volitional movement. The thinking process itself is not laborious, as one all ready knows the process, but it requires constant thought. If I cease to think about walking, I stop walking. That is how one is able to stop walking, one ceases to will to walk.

If we are good people, we don't talk about it. If we are real liars, we don't need to talk about it, since we are it. Thinking is a process between knowledge and not-knowledge. It is only necessary if we haven't reached the goal yet. God knows everything. What reason would he have to think if he knows everything? What could he possibly "think" about?

I agree, an omniscient being cannot think.

I don't "believe" or disbelieve what I say, I just say it. It's no more true than anything else, it's just a different perspective. To know something, I have to know everything, and if I know everything, I don't need to talk about it.

So if A = B and B = C then A = C is "just as valid" as if A = B and B = C than A does not = C?

By Quantam Quack, "I am not convinced that a loss of individuality is to be feared by gaining omniscience. Certainly individuality would need ot be redefined."

Certainly! I would percieve that knowledge can be "I and I" or it can be uniquely "I", but never truly whole.

In reviewing the threads question and after the discussion with Prince on Samsara which was also a part of defining God Hood or a God state I keep getting this feeling that the only real qualification of being God that sticks out is being the Creator God. The thing or entity or action of creating this reality we live in.

Of course there is much said about spontaneous creation, in that the universe came into existence as a spontaneous pheno from absolute nothingness. Unforunately this line of reasoning also leads to a paradox in that the question:

How did nothingness acquire a potential to spontaneously create?

It has often been proposed that God and his creation were both spontaneously created at the same moment. Thus the universe and God are intrinsically linked.

However does this mean that the universe / God can create again from nothingness other universes?

There is evidence that suggests that matter can be spontaneously manifested and spontaneously unmanifested. So the notion of something from nothing is almost proven in science any way [ just a matter of scale]

To me the title of God in a practical sense would require the use of will in the act of creation, and not some sort of reflexive creation but a deliberate act of willed creation.

Now one could argue that this very post and the posts written by all posters are a deliberate act of creation, but alas we create not in a void of nothingness but from experinece and knowledge we have gained. So we are creating something from something and not something form nothing.

To be able to create a universe, and all the systems within that universe, the samsara, the rebirth processes [ if one subscribes to such things] physical laws [ their manifestation] etc etc would be I think the only thing that would give the title of God Hood to an entity.

A little aside and a little story for the moment:

Upon creation, God was born, at first he was nothing but confusion, a storm of space and time chaos, no real form but immense potential. As he entered early childhood his thoughts took on form, time gained cohesion and galaxies and stars started to form, as he started to learn about himself life within the universe that is he, started to evolve and as his intellect grew intelligent sentinent life started to emerge but still he could not act with deliberate will.

So as God [universe] matures his potential to act with deliberate will matures.
One day an entity will emerge that is fully and soley possessed by Gods potential and the ability to act with deliberate will, will evolve.

So by the above definition, God is still a baby waiting to grow to maturity. Thus the God of the Christian genre has yet to evolve.
Heaven and hell are yet to be created.

If the one defining feature that affords the title of God it is the ability to create universally and not individualy. to generate a reality that all share and not just a dream that only one can share.

And example would be to create something from something that is not a mere halucination but something that all can share. [ sounds like normal human business hey?] but do it with and from pure imagination and not directly from the substance of the universe that we already share. To manifest a fantasy, in a way that all can participate.

So in summary :
God by this definition is a yet to evolve enity that can take his individual fantasy that he alone participates in and make it a universal fantasy that we can all participate in.

With this in mind it is no wonder that severe mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia have much Godess about them, in that God and devils invariably play a signifiant part in the psychosis.

Prince James:

"I would argue for metaphysical natural causes rooted in logical necessity."

Causality? great topic.. please elaborate on your statement. it intrigues me.

Quantum Quack:

are you talking from experience or are you quoting other sources?
If you feel the Buddhist approach is successful on what basis is this founded?

Whilst I have some practice with some Buddhist practices, I am not myself a Buddhist, no, so I am but simply offering points of argument that would demonstrate that non-attachment is not impossible and other such things. Basically, I am arguing from a Buddhist perspective based on logic of the belief.

Is there any proof that rebirth has been defeated by anyone?

No. No proof is possible due to the fact that attachment and desire are internal processes, known only to the individually intimately, and only to the external world through action.

The thing that is worth noting is that samsara is what we might call a devine construct. It is a fundemental that existence or God if you like has created. Do you honestly believe that it can be avoided with out coming into direct conflict with that existence or God?

Samsara is not necessarily a divine notion, but really more an aspect of consciousness. Desire is an example of "you can't have your cake and eat it, too". You can either keep the cake, or eat the cake, you cannot have both. You can either have desire and samsara, or you can have no-desire and no-samsara, you cannot have both. Desire naturally produces certain effects, that are logically dependent on desire. Remove the cause, remove the effect.

And also do you believe that it is only the intellect or should I say conscious will that is involved in the cycle of Samsara? If so on what basis is this belief founded?

The conscious will and the subconscious which is created from it, are the only things which truly are "the self" to speak of. In essence, when we speak of a "self", we speak of "a mind", and the mind, being created out of consciousness and subconsciousness (I would claim that unconscious aspects of the mind are simply bodily functions) would be the only thing which would matter as regards desire, as desire stems from it. THat is not to say the body does not have its own desires, but the body is dependent on the consciousness and subconsciousness for desire to be satisfied.

Also is not consciousness itself a product of sufference. The need to wake and have food, to move those aching limbs the desire to avoid bedsores etc.

Some of those who practice extreme non-attachment, basically let themselves waste away or die in other ways. Example: That monk in the Vietnam war that set himself on fire for a protest. He resisted the urge to scream out in pain and flail about. But yes, I would say that any action has atleast some minor amount of desire in it. When faced with death, though, the practitioner of "less extreme" non-attachment is then given an opportunity to release even the attachment to life, and thus become free.

Even waking to consciousness is a product of desire is it not?

I wouldn't necessarily say this, no. Consciousness tends to be stirred by the body.

So how can desire be nullified if one is conscious? if consciousness itself is driven by desire.

Eventually, one has to give up the will to live near death, and then yes, never regain consciousness through death. Ultimately the state of enlightenment is the state of non-consciousness.

How is the paradoxed desire for consciousness/unconsciousness avoided?
The desire for sleep in itself is a conscious desire yes?

More a bodily demand. Eventually, no matter how much you will it, the body collapses into sleep. Another example may be sneezing or releasing waste. The body will eventually force these actions.

Scott Myers:

I would agree with your's and Webster's definition of God on many levels, although I might allow for God to be somewhat different from a being, and thus omniscience becomes more of an offshoot of omnipresence. That is to say, by virtue that God would be everywhere, he'd know anything, even if perhaps he might not be conscious.

But I think there might have been a forum error or something as regards this:

If????????

Then what? and do we agree (as per my potifications)... if in fact; God?

3] If you had infinite knowledge of everything how long would it take to convey that knowledge to someone else?
possible answer: It would take eternity or an infinite amount of time.
<