Taking things for granted is the issue. What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe? What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?

Is it wise to take things for granted?
care to discuss?

Fine with me. I won't care once in oblivion.

Then again, what's the current status of the universal expansion theory? Fade away or snap back? If it's fade away, how do we know God hasn't already left, and the Universe is simply winding down?

What if God in his allpowerfulness decides to have never existed at all ;)

From your personal view point, I guess it will be much like before you were born.

From your personal view point, I guess it will be much like before you were born.

From my point of view really nothing changes :p

If he ever was there. If so, maybe he already has taken is leave, I mean take a look around.........

If he ever was there. If so, maybe he already has taken is leave, I mean take a look around

There's an old joke I picked up as a kid. I think it might have even come from the "Laughter is the Best Medicine" page in Reader's Digest:

A man stands before God and says, "Lord, I bet a million years is like a second to you."

God replies, "This is true, my son."

"And I bet a million dollars is like a penny to you."

"This is true, my son."

The man thinks for a moment, then says, "Can you spare a penny?"

God shrugs, nods, and replies, "Sure. Hang on just a second ...."

It occurred to me long ago that maybe God popped out to grab some coffee.

There's an old joke I picked up as a kid. I think it might have even come from the "Laughter is the Best Medicine" page in Reader's Digest:

A man stands before God and says, "Lord, I bet a million years is like a second to you."

God replies, "This is true, my son."

"And I bet a million dollars is like a penny to you."

"This is true, my son."

The man thinks for a moment, then says, "Can you spare a penny?"

God shrugs, nods, and replies, "Sure. Hang on just a second ...."

It occurred to me long ago that maybe God popped out to grab some coffee.

LMAO, that was very funny. I'm sure some guy starving to death right now is having this conversation with God.

As far as the thread itself, who gives a fuck either way. I don't see God lifting his finger to stop the spread of AIDS and....ah, I'm wasting my time. God left this universe a long time ago.

Taking things for granted is the issue. What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe? What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?

Is it wise to take things for granted?
care to discuss?

actually if people entertain this probability, they will tend to take things more for granted - "Hey we could lose it all at any moment, so lets get out there and really squeeze every last drop from this manifestation before we get hit with the nothingness"

actually if people entertain this probability, they will tend to take things more for granted - "Hey we could lose it all at any moment, so lets get out there and really squeeze every last drop from this manifestation before we get hit with the nothingness"

And that would actually be a good thing, right ?

If he's disappointed, it's His own fault.

If he's disappointed, it's His own fault.

Everything is his fault.

He gave us 60/70 yrs in a universe that will last for billions of yrs, so sod off all ready you tight wad.

And that would actually be a good thing, right ?

if you are thrilled by the prospect of people in large numbers smashing shop windows, yes

if you are thrilled by the prospect of people in large numbers smashing shop windows, yes

Atheists already have this point of view, mind you...
We arent smashing shop windows now are we ?

If he's disappointed, it's His own fault.
Id like to know..how could an ALL KNOWING being be disapointed?:shrug:

What makes you think he didn't give up and just walk away a long time ago?

Taking things for granted is the issue. What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe? What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?

Is it wise to take things for granted?
care to discuss?

I think that if God were to pack up and ship out, no one would be able to tell that he did. So it really isn't that big of a deal.

Atheists already have this point of view, mind you...
We arent smashing shop windows now are we ?
thats because a greater opportunity for exploitation is anticipated under the banners of nationalism

A God, if such exists, who have created a universe in which we live would not be dissapointed in the first place ever, since creating this universe takes the spirit which is much higher level than anyone ever to exist.

thats because a greater opportunity for exploitation is anticipated under the banners of nationalism

What do nationalism and atheism have to do with eachother ? Im certainly not a nationalist.

Taking things for granted is the issue. What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe? What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?

Is it wise to take things for granted?
care to discuss?

seeing that god/heaven doesnt exsist then nothing will change it will still be the same!!

seeing that god/heaven doesnt exsist then nothing will change it will still be the same!!

:cheers: :D

What do nationalism and atheism have to do with eachother ? Im certainly not a nationalist.

perhaps, but I think you would agree that a greater opportunity for exploitation exists under the banners of nationalism - if you disagreed you would probably smash shop windows

seeing that god/heaven doesnt exsist then nothing will change it will still be the same!!

really?

you have direct perception that god and heaven doesn't exist?

do tell ...

What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe? What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?


Why would an omnipotent life form have emotion to begin with? Why would such a life form experience disappointment? Clearly emotion is necessary for human survival, but what would it have to do with a 'God'?

Why would an omnipotent life form have emotion to begin with? Why would such a life form experience disappointment? Clearly emotion is necessary for human survival, but what would it have to do with a 'God'?

Properties or qualities That Come in Degrees
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.

Properties or qualities That Come in Degrees
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.Either you don't understand physics - or you're deliberately using logical fallacies... I'm not sure which.

1. If something has no effect - it does not exist. Existence is only defined by the effect. Likewise a cause is only known by an effect it has.

2. To equate total cause to the "sun" and total effect to the "sunrays" is a logical fallacy. For a cause to be in any way more or less than the effect is to defy physics and the laws of the universe. Yes - you can cherry pick what you deem as the "cause" and the "effect" - but doing so is nothing more than an absurdism of sophistry designed to make your argument appear valid.
Nice try though.

3. Again - sophistry. The lecturer is not a "cause" and his lecture is not an "effect". Pathetic reasoning, LG.

4. This is a Non Sequitur - it does not follow from the previous statements (even if the previous statements were accepted as unflawed). Further, to say something has a property to the "maximum possible" and that they are still increasing implies that they do not yet have that property to the infinite level - and thus are inferior to the Entity that does.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

5. Non Sequitur.

perhaps, but I think you would agree that a greater opportunity for exploitation exists under the banners of nationalism - if you disagreed you would probably smash shop windows

Im confused, what did nationalism have to do with anything considering this thread ?

really?

you have direct perception that god and heaven doesn't exist?

do tell ...

Do you have a direct perception God and heaven DO exist ?

Do you have a direct perception God and heaven DO exist ?I think he claims the former... not sure of the latter.

Properties or qualities That Come in Degrees
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.

What Sarkus said and regardless, this does not answer the question I asked.

What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe?
Supposing that god existed, in a hypothetical scenario:
Leave a viceroy. Duh.
Or at least a Governor-General figure.

What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?
Why would it take everything with him/her?
That'd be like saying Britain would collapse if Queen Elizabeth died.
Supposing that a god existed, it would probably have a successor lined up.
If not, the figure is too stupid to deserve the position of a god.

seeing that god/heaven doesn't exist then nothing will change it will still be the same!!
Obviously. But in a hypothetical scenario, certain things are taken as given.

really?

you have direct perception that god and heaven doesn't exist?

do tell ...

ok, babies dieing, mums dieing, famine, droughts, floods, hurt, pain, sexism, unfairness, severe weather conditions, murder, rape, child abuse, if he did exsist why does he let all that happen, and please dont say because people have got free will because that is just a cop out and for people who dont know the answer.

ok, babies dieing, mums dieing, famine, droughts, floods, hurt, pain, sexism, unfairness, severe weather conditions, murder, rape, child abuse, if he did exsist why does he let all that happen, and please dont say because people have got free will because that is just a cop out and for people who dont know the answer.

then, your personal philosophical issues aside, you don't have direct perception that god doesn't exist

(I would argue that you have flaws on the platform of theory - namely understanding the proper definitions of god, the living entity, the material world and the relationships between all three)

Do you have a direct perception God and heaven DO exist ?

if I said yes, how would you propose to determine if I was lying?

Im confused, what did nationalism have to do with anything considering this thread ?

Quantum opened with the question "should we take things for granted?"

I suggested that if people entertain the idea's he suggested, they would take things more for granted

You suggested that was a good thing

I suggested that the mood of exploitation leads to civil unrest (smashing shopping windows)

you evidenced that atheists don't smash windows en masse

I suggested that is because greater opportunities for exploitation exist under the banners of nationalism (if the power that holds the national identity, ie law and order, wavers, then you get smashed shop windows etc)

savvy?

Sarkus
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Properties or qualities That Come in Degrees
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.
”
Either you don't understand physics - or you're deliberately using logical fallacies... I'm not sure which.

1. If something has no effect - it does not exist. Existence is only defined by the effect. Likewise a cause is only known by an effect it has.
I can't see how my post contravenes this statement

2. To equate total cause to the "sun" and total effect to the "sunrays" is a logical fallacy. For a cause to be in any way more or less than the effect is to defy physics and the laws of the universe.
so the desire for an effect (say, a burning match stick) that is understood to manifest through a cause (say, striking a matchbox with the said match stick) is a logical fallacy?



3. Again - sophistry. The lecturer is not a "cause" and his lecture is not an "effect". Pathetic reasoning, LG.
so for a person desiring to learn something from attending a lecture (an effect), it is not a requirement that the person giving the lecture also attends (a cause)?

4. This is a Non Sequitur - it does not follow from the previous statements (even if the previous statements were accepted as unflawed). Further, to say something has a property to the "maximum possible" and that they are still increasing implies that they do not yet have that property to the infinite level - and thus are inferior to the Entity that does.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
the quality of knowledge and the quality of omnipotency necessitates expanding potency and expanding knowledge - if an entity knows the extent
of their potency, their potency no longer becomes omnnipotent

5. Non Sequitur.
for one subscribing to atheistic ideals, perhaps ...

Ok let's try again

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat
Why would an omnipotent life form have emotion to begin with?
see number 2

Why would such a life form experience disappointment?
we experience disappointment but god doesn't

Clearly emotion is necessary for human survival, but what would it have to do with a 'God'?
emotion is necessary for our thinking/willing/feeling - if god also possesses similar (although much greater) capacities for thinking/willing/feeling (like say we will to organize the kitchen and god wills to organize the universe) the need for emotion arises

has any of you perhaps, noticed the nature of this thread?

as if all of our comments are being directly related to the thread starter?

or is this just me

*confused*

I can't see how my post contravenes this statementObviously.

so the desire for an effect (say, a burning match stick) that is understood to manifest through a cause (say, striking a matchbox with the said match stick) is a logical fallacy?Where have I indicated that? I am merely saying that you are looking at unequal "cause" and "effect" - and in doing so arrive at your illogical conclusions - because you are cherrypicking the elements of the "cause" and the elements of the "effect" that suit your sophistry.
It doesn't work, LG. Either you know it doesn't and are thus being dishonest, or you actually don't know the underlying principles that you're discussing.

so for a person desiring to learn something from attending a lecture (an effect), it is not a requirement that the person giving the lecture also attends (a cause)?Again - cherrypicking to suit your argument.:rolleyes:

You are being simplistic in your interpretation and in doing so reaching the illogical conclusion you are. The cause can not be any more or any less than the effect in anything other than subjective interpretation of their value - which in itself is but part of the grand cause / effect chain.

the quality of knowledge and the quality of omnipotency necessitates expanding potency and expanding knowledge - if an entity knows the extent
of their potency, their potency no longer becomes omnnipotent
So basically you want your cake and eat it?
And you are also not countering the claim that this Entity is inferior to one whose knowledge is already infinite.

for one subscribing to atheistic ideals, perhaps ...Last time I looked a non sequitur is a non sequitur regardless of what you may think of the person who claimed it. Your counter argument to the claim of it being a non sequitur is an ad hom.

If you don't think it is a non sequitur - please explain why not rather than answer it with some glib comment that merely implies you have no answer.

if I said yes, how would you propose to determine if I was lying?


If i said i have direct perception God and heaven DONt exist, how would you propose to determine if I was lying?

Ok let's try again
see number 2

Saw it. It doesn't answer the question.


we experience disappointment but god doesn't

Did 'God' tell you that?


emotion is necessary for our thinking/willing/feeling - if god also possesses similar (although much greater) capacities for thinking/willing/feeling (like say we will to organize the kitchen and god wills to organize the universe) the need for emotion arises

Why would 'God' have emotion?

*************
M*W: No god can call it "quits," because no god called the "starts." That's a delusion of ignorant humans.

Thanks. That really contributed to the conversation MW. way to be.


Anyways, if God called it quits, chances are pretty good everything would be thrown into chaos. the natural order of things would either be halted or disbanded all together.

The effect would be dramatic in any matter but it could be a slow change or a fast one. does god call it quits and stop controlling things like the movement of the earth? Or does he just let those things dictate themselves and just stop caring all together, waiting for all of us to die natural deaths? Who knows.

Thanks. That really contributed to the conversation MW. way to be.


Anyways, if God called it quits, chances are pretty good everything would be thrown into chaos. the natural order of things would either be halted or disbanded all together.

The effect would be dramatic in any matter but it could be a slow change or a fast one. does god call it quits and stop controlling things like the movement of the earth? Or does he just let those things dictate themselves and just stop caring all together, waiting for all of us to die natural deaths? Who knows.

What makes you say "chances are pretty good"?

Falso alarm, folks.

I just saw God over at Walmart. He decided to stick around for a while to take advantage of the new lower prices. 6 pack of paper towells reduced from 2.99 to 2.94. :)

What a great guy? All that power and all he comes up with is a world of plastic tasting tomatoes and Paris Hilton. :bugeye:

If there is a god judging this god he'd have those typical comments on his report card:

-needs constant attention.
-not performing up to his ability
-anger management issues

-aptitude test and performance to date indicate he's well suited to pursue a career in sheet metal work or windsheid repair.

What makes you say "chances are pretty good"?

well if the supreme designer and controller of the universe just throws up his arms and leaves, common sense dictates, we'd be pretty screwed.

in other words, "God" is QQ.

That's what this shit is about.

Simply, how can god call it quits? What exists for him to quit with? I don't understand. Can somebody enlighten me please.

in other words, "God" is QQ.

That's what this shit is about.

Simply, how can god call it quits? What exists for him to quit with? I don't understand. Can somebody enlighten me please.

Nothing exists, not even God :p

enmos:

I believe this is incorrect.
Are you somehow emplying the defination of god that I mentioned presented & presented by QQ?

If so, the arguement is one of the most interesting things in my existance.
Nothing exists? Somehow, I don't smell this.

If i said i have direct perception God and heaven DONt exist, how would you propose to determine if I was lying?


see how your views coincide scripture

BG 4.9: One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.

BG 8.16: From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again.

BG 8.21: That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode.

BG 18.56: Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My pure devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace.

SB 3.4.12: O honest one, your present life is the last and the supermost because in this term of life you have been awarded My ultimate favor. Now you can go to My transcendental abode, Vaikuṇṭha, by leaving this universe of conditioned living entities. Your visit to Me in this lonely place because of your pure and unflinching devotional service is a great boon for you.

etc etc ....


the next question would be if there is some particular reason why your views do not coincide with scripture .....

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I can't see how my post contravenes this statement
”
Obviously.

“
so the desire for an effect (say, a burning match stick) that is understood to manifest through a cause (say, striking a matchbox with the said match stick) is a logical fallacy?
”
Where have I indicated that? I am merely saying that you are looking at unequal "cause" and "effect" -
cause and effect should be equal?
:confused:


“
so for a person desiring to learn something from attending a lecture (an effect), it is not a requirement that the person giving the lecture also attends (a cause)?
”
Again - cherrypicking to suit your argument.

You are being simplistic in your interpretation and in doing so reaching the illogical conclusion you are. The cause can not be any more or any less than the effect in anything other than subjective interpretation of their value - which in itself is but part of the grand cause / effect chain.
truly bizzare!!

still it remains that one can make yogurt out of milk but one cannot make milk out of yogurt

“
the quality of knowledge and the quality of omnipotency necessitates expanding potency and expanding knowledge - if an entity knows the extent
of their potency, their potency no longer becomes omnnipotent
”
So basically you want your cake and eat it?
And you are also not countering the claim that this Entity is inferior to one whose knowledge is already infinite.
no

I can only assume you didn't read what I posted before you responded

“
for one subscribing to atheistic ideals, perhaps ...
”
Last time I looked a non sequitur is a non sequitur regardless of what you may think of the person who claimed it. Your counter argument to the claim of it being a non sequitur is an ad hom.

If you don't think it is a non sequitur - please explain why not rather than answer it with some glib comment that merely implies you have no answer.

perhaps I would have something to respond to if you could tell us why it is a non sequitur (since as far as I can tell at the moment, the only reason it doesn't make sense is because it disturbs your atheistic ideals)

Nothing exists, not even God :p

what about Emnos and his posts?
Do they exist?

Crunchy Cat
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Ok let's try again
see number 2
”
Saw it. It doesn't answer the question.
if emotion is an effect of our consciousness, and if our consciousness is an effect of god, then god, as the cause of all causes must have recourse to these things also

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
we experience disappointment but god doesn't
”
Did 'God' tell you that?
what to speak of god experiencing disappointment


even those who are properly situated under his shelter don't experience it

SB 4.30.20: Always engaging in the activities of devotional service, devotees feel ever-increasingly fresh and new in all their activities. The all-knower, the Supersoul within the heart of the devotee, makes everything increasingly fresh. This is known as the Brahman position by the advocates of the Absolute Truth. In such a liberated stage [brahma-bhūta], one is never bewildered. Nor does one lament or become unnecessarily jubilant. This is due to the brahma-bhūta situation.

is it possible for disappointment to exist outside the medium of duality?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
emotion is necessary for our thinking/willing/feeling - if god also possesses similar (although much greater) capacities for thinking/willing/feeling (like say we will to organize the kitchen and god wills to organize the universe) the need for emotion arises
”
Why would 'God' have emotion?
explained above - if you can elaborate on how one can be conscious and exert an influence without displaying emotion, please do so ...

well if the supreme designer and controller of the universe just throws up his arms and leaves, common sense dictates, we'd be pretty screwed.

Not unless he designed the material universe in such a way that it'd work fine without him. And no one here (or anywhere) knows if that's what he did.

And besides, common sense tends to bend with god. The big guy works in mysterious ways and all that.

see how your views coincide scripture



the next question would be if there is some particular reason why your views do not coincide with scripture .....

Is that supposed to show me God and heaven exist ? :confused:
That is not even near evidence-like...

Not unless he designed the material universe in such a way that it'd work fine without him. And no one here (or anywhere) knows if that's what he did.

And besides, common sense tends to bend with god. The big guy works in mysterious ways and all that.

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

if you take away the thread from a string of pearls, what will happen?

enmos:

I believe this is incorrect.
Are you somehow emplying the defination of god that I mentioned presented & presented by QQ?

If so, the arguement is one of the most interesting things in my existance.
Nothing exists? Somehow, I don't smell this.

Well you asked "What exists for him to quit with?". I mean, what about everything ?

what about Emnos and his posts?
Do they exist?

I have never heard of Emnos and his posts.. :confused:
So i cant know if they exist or not..

Is that supposed to show me God and heaven exist ? :confused:
That is not even near evidence-like...

you didn't ask for evidence

you asked how we would know if you are lying or not

For instance if I tell you that water is made up of cadmium and nitrogen are you required to produce evidence to determine the truth/falsity of that, or is it sufficient to look for some indication in a chemistry book?

I have never heard of Emnos and his posts.. :confused:
So i cant know if they exist or not..

sorry

I must have mistaken you for someone else ....

:m: :m:

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

if you take away the thread from a string of pearls, what will happen?

Depends, do I immediately will another thread to be in the original thread's place? Cause God can do that.

sorry

I must have mistaken you for someone else ....

:m: :m:

I guess.. but if you mean Enmos, i think i have seen him around here somewhere.. ;)

I guess.. but if you mean Enmos, i think i have seen him around here somewhere.. ;)

you must be mistaken

I have it on good authority that nothing exists
not even Enmos
:D

Depends, do I immediately will another thread to be in the original thread's place? Cause God can do that.

well if you can't even will that you don't visit the dentist, it tends to indicate a bit of a gap between your willing and gods ....

you must be mistaken

I have it on good authority that nothing exists
not even Enmos
:D

Im sure Emnos would agree ;)

well if you can't even will that you don't visit the dentist, it tends to indicate a bit of a gap between your willing and gods ....

Er, the point was that god could easily replace the string of pearls with his will, not me.

you didn't ask for evidence

you asked how we would know if you are lying or not

For instance if I tell you that water is made up of cadmium and nitrogen are you required to produce evidence to determine the truth/falsity of that, or is it sufficient to look for some indication in a chemistry book?

You dont need evidence for yourself to know something is true ? :scratchin:

Im sure Emnos would agree ;)
he would agree if he existed, I am sure
:D
Er, the point was that god could easily replace the string of pearls with his will, not me.
but if god leaves the picture, so does his will

You dont need evidence for yourself to know something is true ? :scratchin:
certainly not

if sciforums was limited to the discussion of things that are evidenced by the contributors, the threads would be about what their mothers cooked for dinner last night

he would agree if he existed, I am sure
:D

I guess he would agree sooner just because he doesnt exist.. :scratchin:


certainly not

if sciforums was limited to the discussion of things that are evidenced by the contributors, the threads would be about what their mothers cooked for dinner last night

I was talking about for yourself, not what you discuss on here.

And i dont feel the need to discuss Chinese food.. lol

Enmos
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
he would agree if he existed, I am sure

”
I guess he would agree sooner just because he doesnt exist..
I see, so we wouldn't want to doubt his existence to the point of doubting the ideas he advocates ....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly not

if sciforums was limited to the discussion of things that are evidenced by the contributors, the threads would be about what their mothers cooked for dinner last night
”
I was talking about for yourself, not what you discuss on here.

if you want to know what is true for yourself, you have to gain the relative qualification

if you want to know what is true in general, you can approach persons established in the field

this explains why people take their cars to mechanics when they break down
(as opposed to becoming a qualified mechanic)

this explains why people go to a doctor when they are sick
(as opposed to becoming a qualified doctor)

this explains why people approach a lawyer when they are in trouble with the law
(as opposed to becoming a qualified lawyer)

etc etc

but if god leaves the picture, so does his will

Unless he leaves some sort of substitute.

Unless he leaves some sort of substitute.
substitute for god with or without having the qualities of god?

cause and effect should be equal?
:confused: Yes - ever heard of conservation of energy / momentum / angular momentum etc?
Obviously I am not talking "equal" as in "identical".
And to be honest - if you thought I was then I am disappointed in you.

truly bizzare!!Nothing that a quick check in a physics book won't cure you of.

still it remains that one can make yogurt out of milk but one cannot make milk out of yogurtLogical fallacy.
This statement has no bearing to the issue in hand - or are you claiming that it does? If so - elaborate.

As I stated - you are cherrypicking your "cause" and your "effect" for pure sophistry.


noYes.

I can only assume you didn't read what I posted before you respondedAh - yes - another of your unproven assumptions.
Your claim was that an omnipotent being could not have infinite knowledge - or else they would have knowledge of the extent of their potency.
So which is greater - your entity with potencies increasing - or a being with infinite potencies?
A simple answer would suffice.

perhaps I would have something to respond to if you could tell us why it is a non sequitur (since as far as I can tell at the moment, the only reason it doesn't make sense is because it disturbs your atheistic ideals)Pathetic. Ideals have nothing to do with the (il)logical consistency of statements.

So let's go through this...
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.
(4) does not follow from (1), (2) or (3) - and is thus a non sequitur.
There is NOTHING within the assumptions and conclusions of the first three that leads to the conclusion in the fourth.

(5) does not follow from (4) - and is thus a non sequitur.
There is nothing in the claim in (4) that leads to the claim of (5).

(1) is a claim (albeit a fallacious one).
(2) and (3) are examples (albeit reaffirming the fallacious claim in (1)).
(4) just doesn't follow at all. It is a new claim - with no bearing to the prior three.
(5) does not follow from (4).

Maybe you missed out a number of steps between (3) and (4) and again between (4) and (5)?

Either way - as they stand - (4) and (5) are non sequiturs.

substitute for god with or without having the qualities of god?

No clue, but God can do anything right? I'm sure he'd manage to get this right if he wanted to do it.

God is Quantum Quack....

The rest of the nonsence about god leaving?

sarkus
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
cause and effect should be equal?

”
Yes - ever heard of conservation of energy / momentum / angular momentum etc?
ever heard of entropy and heat death?


Obviously I am not talking "equal" as in "identical".
so in what ways would they not be "identical"?




“
still it remains that one can make yogurt out of milk but one cannot make milk out of yogurt
”
Logical fallacy.
This statement has no bearing to the issue in hand - or are you claiming that it does? If so - elaborate.
milk is the cause of yoghurt
if cause and effect are equal, turn yoghurt back into milk




“
I can only assume you didn't read what I posted before you responded
”
Ah - yes - another of your unproven assumptions.
Your claim was that an omnipotent being could not have infinite knowledge -
no - I claimed that infinite knowledge is constantly unlimited in its expansion



So let's go through this...
“
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.
”
(4) does not follow from (1), (2) or (3) - and is thus a non sequitur.
There is NOTHING within the assumptions and conclusions of the first three that leads to the conclusion in the fourth.
if we have certain properties, there must exist a person who has it in the maximum

(5) does not follow from (4) - and is thus a non sequitur.
There is nothing in the claim in (4) that leads to the claim of (5).
nobody is the richest?
nobody is the most intelligent?
etc etc

(1) is a claim (albeit a fallacious one).
until you can turn yoghurt back into milk, it remains sound

No clue, but God can do anything right? I'm sure he'd manage to get this right if he wanted to do it.

so the question remains, would the substitute have the qualities of god or not - if you answer yes, then it doesn't really address what would happen if god left. If you answer no, then it doesn't really address how things would go on in the absence of god

so the question remains, would the substitute have the qualities of god or not - if you answer yes, then it doesn't really address what would happen if god left. If you answer no, then it doesn't really address how things would go on in the absence of god

Could you clarify what the qualities of god are please?

I thought God was omnipresent.. I mean, where would he go ??

Taking things for granted is the issue. What if God decides to wind things up and move to another universe? What if he gets so disappointed with his own creation that he commits suicide and takes everything with him to oblivion?

Is it wise to take things for granted?
care to discuss?

Why would God respond like that? The universe is self-perceptual, not self-destructive. God obeys logic and created it too. The boundary of the universe must be infinitely complex to be both inclusive to itself and yet contain itself. This gives rise to self-perception somehow. It's very difficult stuff to explain.

see how your views coincide scripture



the next question would be if there is some particular reason why your views do not coincide with scripture .....

How can one know the inconceivable?

Ah - yes - another of your unproven assumptions.
Your claim was that an omnipotent being could not have infinite knowledge - or else they would have knowledge of the extent of their potency.
So which is greater - your entity with potencies increasing - or a being with infinite potencies?
A simple answer would suffice.

What are you trying to show with this one?


So let's go through this...

[Lightgigantic] "
(1) In chains of causes and effects the cause is or has more than the effect.
(2) As the sun has more light and heat than the sunrays.
(3) As a lecturer has more knowledge than given in a lecture (and ideally he will increase in knowledge).
(4) So there is an Entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree, and is increasing in properties or qualities.
(5) Hence the Perfect Being exists.
(1) is a claim (albeit a fallacious one).
(2) and (3) are examples (albeit reaffirming the fallacious claim in (1)).
(4) just doesn't follow at all. It is a new claim - with no bearing to the prior three.
(5) does not follow from (4). "

Maybe you missed out a number of steps between (3) and (4) and again between (4) and (5)?

Either way - as they stand - (4) and (5) are non sequiturs.

What do you think the boundary of the universe must consist of? Consider that objects exist in space and time but reality does not. At the most fundamental level of reality the concrete and the abstract are one and the same. It was demonstrated as a logical necessity to say so and its at the forefront as a resolution to some important questions like that of the set of all sets.

If the correct epistemology is learned from the right authorities then the indisputable ontology of the absolute becomes self-evident.

This is what a retard sounds like when he's trying to act like he knows what the hell he's talking about.:scratchin: :truce:

Crunchy Cat
“
if emotion is an effect of our consciousness, and if our consciousness is an effect of god, then god, as the cause of all causes must have recourse to these things also

All evidence points to consciousness being an effect of the brain which is an effect of environmental pressures. For a 'God' to be a cause, it would have to literally be environmental pressure... which has displayed no sentience.


what to speak of god experiencing disappointment


even those who are properly situated under his shelter don't experience it

SB 4.30.20: Always engaging in the activities of devotional service, devotees feel ever-increasingly fresh and new in all their activities. The all-knower, the Supersoul within the heart of the devotee, makes everything increasingly fresh. This is known as the Brahman position by the advocates of the Absolute Truth. In such a liberated stage [brahma-bhūta], one is never bewildered. Nor does one lament or become unnecessarily jubilant. This is due to the brahma-bhūta situation.

is it possible for disappointment to exist outside the medium of duality?

A simple, "No, someone else made it up" would have sufficed.


explained above - if you can elaborate on how one can be conscious and exert an influence without displaying emotion, please do so ...

Chewing?

what if god calls it quits.... then i gues were fuked...he gets his pension and retires in a nice little bungolo somwere

Crunchy Cat
“
if emotion is an effect of our consciousness, and if our consciousness is an effect of god, then god, as the cause of all causes must have recourse to these things also
”
All evidence points to consciousness being an effect of the brain
this thread, however, deals with god as a given

if you want to define god as something different than what he is understood to be due to speculation ("all evidence" ???? - hardly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram))


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what to speak of god experiencing disappointment


even those who are properly situated under his shelter don't experience it

properly situated???

out of curiosity how do you define the characteristics of being properly situated under god's shelter?

SB 4.30.20: Always engaging in the activities of devotional service, devotees feel ever-increasingly fresh and new in all their activities. The all-knower, the Supersoul within the heart of the devotee, makes everything increasingly fresh. This is known as the Brahman position by the advocates of the Absolute Truth. In such a liberated stage [brahma-bhūta], one is never bewildered. Nor does one lament or become unnecessarily jubilant. This is due to the brahma-bhūta situation.

is it possible for disappointment to exist outside the medium of duality?
”
A simple, "No, someone else made it up" would have sufficed.

if I said that it might give you the false confidence in thinking that your opinion is as valid as any one else's on the subject

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
explained above - if you can elaborate on how one can be conscious and exert an influence without displaying emotion, please do so ...
”
Chewing?
even serenity is an emotion - of course if someone was chewing tasty food while hungry they may manifest slightly different emotions - more different again would be the emotions likely to be encountered by chewing rusty nails ...

Could you clarify what the qualities of god are please?

there are many - but in this particular instance we are discussing his characteristic, as brought up by the pearls on a thread verse, of being the primary foundation of all substance and order, or the resting place of everything (in sanskrit it is called sthana (http://vedabase.net/s/sthana))

How can one know the inconceivable?

by acting in such a way as to receive inconceivable mercy
;)

What are you trying to show with this one?I'm trying to get an answer from Lightgigantic, and to show that his arguments are not consistent.

What do you think the boundary of the universe must consist of? Consider that objects exist in space and time but reality does not. At the most fundamental level of reality the concrete and the abstract are one and the same. It was demonstrated as a logical necessity to say so and its at the forefront as a resolution to some important questions like that of the set of all sets.I fail to see how this has any relevance to me claiming LG's comments were non sequiturs?
Maybe you can explain.

Meanwhile I await a response from LG to see if he recognises his comments as being non sequiturs or not - and if not, why not.

there are many - but in this particular instance we are discussing his characteristic, as brought up by the pearls on a thread verse, of being the primary foundation of all substance and order, or the resting place of everything (in sanskrit it is called sthana (http://vedabase.net/s/sthana))

Then yes, his substitute would have that quality of God. I don't see why that doesn't address the question of what would happen if God left. The answer, in this particular instance, would be.. nothing.

Meanwhile I await a response from LG to see if he recognises his comments as being non sequiturs or not - and if not, why not.
see post 78

Then yes, his substitute would have that quality of God. I don't see why that doesn't address the question of what would happen if God left.
for a start it is an exclusive quality of god

ever heard of entropy and heat death?Yes thanks - doesn't change the equivalence of the cause and effect.

so in what ways would they not be "identical"?Differences arise due to mass etc, but conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum still apply.

milk is the cause of yoghurt
if cause and effect are equal, turn yoghurt back into milkCherrypicking your "cause" and "effect".

no - I claimed that infinite knowledge is constantly unlimited in its expansionHow ? Someone with infinite knowledge already knows EVERYTHING. Hence "infinite". If there is a limit (i.e. open to expansion) then it is not INFINITE - by definition.

if we have certain properties, there must exist a person who has it in the maximum
nobody is the richest?
nobody is the most intelligent?
etc etc
You stated that this person must have ALL properties to the maximum.
The richest person also being the most intelligent?
Can they be the poorest as well? :eek:

As originally stated it remains a non sequitur.


until you can turn yoghurt back into milk, it remains soundOnly in your head and within your sophistry, and in your subjective assessment of value.

If you continue to make the claim, then prove that milk "is or has more than" yoghurt.

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ever heard of entropy and heat death?
”
Yes thanks - doesn't change the equivalence of the cause and effect.
yes

it enables the distinction between the two ....

“
so in what ways would they not be "identical"?
”
Differences arise due to mass etc, but conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum still apply.
brilliant

“
milk is the cause of yoghurt
if cause and effect are equal, turn yoghurt back into milk
”
Cherrypicking your "cause" and "effect".
lol - feel free to indicate any cause and effect you like

“
no - I claimed that infinite knowledge is constantly unlimited in its expansion
”
How ? Someone with infinite knowledge already knows EVERYTHING.

Hence "infinite". If there is a limit (i.e. open to expansion) then it is not INFINITE - by definition.
if the knowledge has a limit it is no longer infinite

“
if we have certain properties, there must exist a person who has it in the maximum
nobody is the richest?
nobody is the most intelligent?
etc etc
”
You stated that this person must have ALL properties to the maximum.
The richest person also being the most intelligent?
one who is the cause richness and intelligence


Can they be the poorest as well?
yes, if they are omnipotent




“
until you can turn yoghurt back into milk, it remains sound
”
Only in your head and within your sophistry, and in your subjective assessment of value.
(sigh)

if cause and effect are equal
and if milk is the cause of yoghurt
what is the problem?

If you continue to make the claim, then prove that milk "is or has more than" yoghurt.
to start with milk is more versatile than yoghurt - you can make so many things out of milk, of which yoghurt is one.

for a start it is an exclusive quality of god

And? I'm not sure what your point is, God can do anything can't he? Surely if he wanted to, he could share some of that exclusive quality to something else.

God can't quit...because....because....He's FIRED!!!!!!!!!!

God can't quit...because....because....He's FIRED!!!!!!!!!!

He can't be fired either...he's dead.

And? I'm not sure what your point is, God can do anything can't he? Surely if he wanted to, he could share some of that exclusive quality to something else.
then that thing would become an expansion of god's potency - just like you can take one candle and light it with another and another and another. There is no qualitative difference between one candle and another, although one is held to the original and the others secondary.

maybe with a name like ashura you are aware that the vedas describes this precisely with Vishnu and his plenary portions

then that thing would become an expansion of god's potency - just like you can take one candle and light it with another and another and another. There is no qualitative difference between one candle and another, although one is held to the original and the others secondary.

maybe with a name like ashura you are aware that the vedas describes this precisely with Vishnu and his plenary portions

The difference I see is that one would be the creator (God) and one would be the creation (God's substitute).

The difference I see is that one would be the creator (God) and one would be the creation (God's substitute).

but still, for such purposes of god manifesting an expansion of himself, there is no qualitative expansion between god and his subsequent plenary expansions (its not like the first candle lit amongst several is brighter)

but still, for such purposes of god manifesting an expansion of himself, there is no qualitative expansion between god and his subsequent plenary expansions (its not like the first candle lit amongst several is brighter)

But it's not a plenary expansion. It's a creation of something new and the imbuing it with just one quality of God, that of being the string upon which the pearls are laid (literally speaking, we're talking about the current physical laws of the universe). This creation would not gain all aspects of God. Just the one. And the fact that it's a creation is still a huge issue in it being different than God.

But I've realized that this won't apply at all if you're in the camp that says "well goodness is a quality of God and as long as there is goodness in the world, God is in it" or any variation of it. Are you in that camp lightgigantic?

But it's not a plenary expansion.
It's a creation of something new and the imbuing it with just one quality of God, that of being the string upon which the pearls are laid (literally speaking, we're talking about the current physical laws of the universe). This creation would not gain all aspects of God. Just the one. And the fact that it's a creation is still a huge issue in it being different than God.
for something to be manifest that can be the basis of all existence (ie pearls on a thread), it would certainly be a plenary expansion

But I've realized that this won't apply at all if you're in the camp that says "well goodness is a quality of God and as long as there is goodness in the world, God is in it" or any variation of it. Are you in that camp lightgigantic?
the "goodness" thing is a bit vague, but I think its more a case of it walks like chicken, sounds like a chicken and looks like a chicken it is a chicken

for something to be manifest that can be the basis of all existence (ie pearls on a thread), it would certainly be a plenary expansion


the "goodness" thing is a bit vague, but I think its more a case of it walks like chicken, sounds like a chicken and looks like a chicken it is a chicken

Plenary in relation to existence, yes, but not in relation to God. For example, it would be like leaving the courts intact but removing the judges.

And I'm not sure how to interpret your second response. Maybe I should be more frank with my question: if one, and no other, aspect of God were left, would you use that as evidence to say that God is still here? ie. the string still remains, but no afterlife.

Plenary in relation to existence, yes, but not in relation to God. For example, it would be like leaving the courts intact but removing the judges.
a court house without a judge would be like a string of pearls without a thread

And I'm not sure how to interpret your second response. Maybe I should be more frank with my question: if one, and no other, aspect of God were left, would you use that as evidence to say that God is still here? ie. the string still remains, but no afterlife.
yes there would still be a god - just like there may be a variety of reasons why a plane could be in the air - it could have a pilot, it could be remote controlled, it could be run by a computer, etc - but in all cases it requires human intelligence - in the same way to have the universal show on the road (ie strung like pearls on a thread) requires god (for maintenance, even if you want to put creation and/or annihilation in limbo)

a court house without a judge would be like a string of pearls without a thread

yes there would still be a god - just like there may be a variety of reasons why a plane could be in the air - it could have a pilot, it could be remote controlled, it could be run by a computer, etc - but in all cases it requires human intelligence - in the same way to have the universal show on the road (ie strung like pearls on a thread) requires god (for maintenance, even if you want to put creation and/or annihilation in limbo)

So then you are in the group that says if just one aspect of God is around, then God is around? See, what I'm proposing is that God leaves that one aspect that lets existence stay the way it is imbued in a creation

But when he leaves, every other aspect of his leaves with him. Judgment, afterlife, heaven, hell, etc. Every aspect that God has that doesn't relate maintaining existence, God would take with him (where would he go? who knows).

Are we getting closer to being on the same wavelength?

So then you are in the group that says if just one aspect of God is around, then God is around? See, what I'm proposing is that God leaves that one aspect that lets existence stay the way it is imbued in a creation

But when he leaves, every other aspect of his leaves with him. Judgment, afterlife, heaven, hell, etc. Every aspect that God has that doesn't relate maintaining existence, God would take with him (where would he go? who knows).

Are we getting closer to being on the same wavelength?

I see

kind of like discussing water that doesn't have recourse to wetness or fire that doesn't have recourse to heat or a court house without a judge or a string of pearls without a thread

I see

kind of like discussing water that doesn't have recourse to wetness or fire that doesn't have recourse to heat or a court house without a judge or a string of pearls without a thread

As silly as it sounds, exactly. :p

I'm basing this on the concept that God can do anything. If he wanted to, he can create water that doesn't make you wet. Surely he can create what I'm proposing.

As silly as it sounds, exactly. :p

I'm basing this on the concept that God can do anything. If he wanted to, he can create water that doesn't make you wet. Surely he can create what I'm proposing.
actually there are scriptural quotes (comes up repeatedly in the Mahabharata) that go to the effect that fire may lose its sense of heat, space may lose its sense of vastness, etc etc, but the supreme lord can not lose his capacity to create, maintain and annihilate the cosmic manifestation - in others words many impossible things may be possible for god, but it is not possible for the cosmic manifestation to be present in any of its three phases without the support of god

actually there are scriptural quotes (comes up repeatedly in the Mahabharata) that go to the effect that fire may lose its sense of heat, space may lose its sense of vastness, etc etc, but the supreme lord can not lose his capacity to create, maintain and annihilate the cosmic manifestation - in others words many impossible things may be possible for god, but it is not possible for the cosmic manifestation to be present in any of its three phases without the support of god

"the supreme lord can not lose his capacity to create, maintain and annihilate the cosmic manifestation" does not equal "it is not possible for the cosmic manifestation to be present in any of its three phases without the support of god".

It just means that it's impossible for God to lose the ability to do such things.

"the supreme lord can not lose his capacity to create, maintain and annihilate the cosmic manifestation" does not equal "it is not possible for the cosmic manifestation to be present in any of its three phases without the support of god".

It just means that it's impossible for God to lose the ability to do such things.
it was just a recall on quotes that present a complex topic simply.

God(isvara), the living entity (jiva) and nature (prakrti) are described as possessing constitutional characteristics - in other words it is not possible for the jiva or prakrti to display the characteristics of god (such as being the thread upon which pearls rest), nor is it possible for isvara to possess the characteristics of jiva (one such characteristic of the jiva is the ability to fall into ignorance) or prakrti (one such characteristic of prakrti is to be dependent on a superior cause)

for god to deposit his qualities upon something else requires a plenary expansion of himself, since prakrti or jiva can not do so (and remain classified as prakrti or jiva)

btw I am only going on with these terms because I am guessing with a name like "asura" you are somewhat familiar with them