When exploring this question, I think it's useful to remove the physical universe from the equation, otherwise we are still tempted to default back to invoking God as a solution to the question of it's existence and stop thinking (since the universe is incomprehensible enough already, and we want to resolve the problem). So imagine God before the universe was created. Imagine that there is nothing but an unphysical consciousness. An entity. A personality. Why is it there? No matter how much theists might insist that this isn't a valid question, it is. The concept of God is subject to the same fundamental question of existence that the universe itself is subject to. There's just no legitimate way around it. (By the way Yazata, I'm not directing this at you. I was just using the quoted portion of your post as a springboard.)
Signal, Are you saying ''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'' have NOT claimed to be the Supreme Being, belief or lack of aside? All I'm saying is that I do not know for a fact that they do or do not exist. Also, I am aware that there is no way to ascertain that knowledge without being told by the Supreme Being. So I have a choice. I either accept the possibility of a Supreme Being, or I don't. Now, do you or anyone else has another way of knowing whether or not a Supreme Being exists, which does not have to involve acceptance on some level? This is a straight-foreward question. Can you answer it? Signal, we've been back and forth with this, I've trie to explain to you what I think you are talking about. Thus far you have come back with what seems to be the same thing, as though it hasn't been addressed. I have asked you to draw some conclusion, or give some definitions which we can mutually work with in a bid to keep the goal-posts in one place. You have refused, and as such I can only conclude I have no idea what you are talking about (even though I understand the words). If you mean I stick to the scripture, and the bona-fide spiritual master, as the spiritual authority, then yes. Then climb out of your shell and make some decisions. Draw some conclusion so we can see where you stand. Prove it. From a scriptoral point of view. Because the religions you mentioned are based on scripture, despite their differences. jan. Such an acceptance is indistinguishable from willed insanity.[/QUOTE]
Ruling the question out simply by definition, by the invocation of some philosophical magic word like 'necessary' or 'eternal', seems like an evasion to me. As you've already pointed out, we could make the same kind of move regarding the natural universe and simply cut God out of the whole deal. Even if we accept the theistic move, it does't really have any informative content. Calling something 'necessary' is really just shorthand for 'don't ask why'. It doesn't really explain anything, nor does it tell us how those who coined the definition could possibly know what they were talking about. If there's a conceptual problem accounting for the being of being, then shoving being upstairs into some supposed 'supernatural' heaven and pronouncing it 'necessary' doesn't make the question go away, it just ignores it. Feel free to direct it at me if you like. It's a good point and I agree wholeheartedly with you.
Here's an example of a different view: Is there (a) God? Does God exist? Why does God exist? are questions that humans simply cannot answer, unless we default to presuming that God is a being lesser than ourselves.
It is beyond me to answer this. There is a difference between contrivance and acceptance. To answer your question, would be contrivance. You are applying popular Western epistemology to a philosophy that doesn't operate with such an epistemology. This is what is going on! You aren't sticking to the scripture. How many times do scriptures say that one needs to take intiation? Did you get initated in ISKCON? Are you a member of ISKCON? SB 4.9.11: "Transcendental devotional service cannot be complete and cannot be relishable without the association of devotees. We have therefore established the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Krishna Consciousness Society and yet engage in Krishna consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible." As far as I know, you are not a member. And you are holding as authoritative a version of scripture that has been produced by an organization that you do not approve of. Well ... Frankly, at this point, I think you either have many good arguments up your sleeve that you haven't used so far, or you are full of shit. I should prove to you that my view is what it is??
I'm not sure how what you quoted supports this assertion. It seems to be a comparison between the way spirituality has historically been approached in different parts of the world. In any case, defining God as a being that is so great that it's existence need not be accounted for is essentially the same argument as before. Also, I don't need to be able to wrap my head around the infinite size of the universe in order to ask questions about how it came to be, do I? Once again I could just as easily argue that to question the origin of the universe is to presume that it is a lesser entity as compared to yourself (and thus it does not require a cause).
I agree. But I think the problem around showing God's existence essentially emerges from the fact that the theist/atheist discussion is taking place between members of a theistic group and non-members of said group. I think the emic-etic distinction applies here. There are things about God that can be understood only emically, never etically. And as long as we are not members of a theistic group, we won't understand. What is a bit perplexing, though, is that theists often do not consider the emic-etic distinction, and instead maintain that everyone can (eventually) come to the same knowledge of God, and that the only factor is one's free will.
No, I added that myself. Obviously. And there are some characteristic differences. There are questions that Westerners will ask, but Easterners won't, and vice versa. I find this to be very interesting. Not "need not be accounted for" but "cannot be accounted for" by humans. Sure, we can ask all kinds of questions. Whether they have answers, whether they even can have answers, that is another matter. This is why I find intercultural studies and accounts interesting, as people of different cultures have approached these problems differently.
I don't know any theist would care enough about others to do so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They'll just blame it all on us. You know, it's dangerous to consider oneself a sotapanna if one actually isn't that ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Signal, Stop wasting time, you know what I mean. This is why I've come to the conclusion that conversing with you is a pointless pursuit. Develop a back-bone, and commit yourself to something. Here is a perfect oppotunity. Answer the question. How does not being a member of ISKON make me not stick to scripture and the bona-fide spiritual master ''as spiritual authorities''? Please answer that question? By ''produce'' I take it you mean ''translated''? Why do you hold that I don't approve of ISKON? Ouch!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! At least your developing some bite in your responses. Who knows? One day you may come right out and answer a question. jan.
I'm going to formulate a deeper Pantheist view for the sake of discussion here. Note that every time I use the word "God" it is synonymous with nature or the universe. The energy of God manifests dynamically. Sometimes it exists in the form of a highly uniform singularity and other times as a wondrous cosmic symphony. Whatever state of affairs may be in play at any particular time, God is most certainly always infinite. Anything that can happen according to God's own nature does happen. Perhaps the most incredible of all possible happenings is the eventual and inevitable manifestation of God's energies as numerous self aware entities that have individually unique experiences. As God continues to manifest in ever changing ways (but always according to it's nature), more and more of these unique entities emerge until the cosmic symphony is equaled in presence by the cosmic choir. Consciousness, a feature of God, is everywhere. God's energies continue to manifest in this manner for an unimaginable period of time until eventually, God rests. In the overview the fullness of God has been expressed, and thus it is now time for a new beginning. God's energies, returned once more to their highly uniform state, are ready to launch into the next cosmic symphony, and begin the expression once more. The question of God's existence is of course a nonsensical one. God exists because God must; because the impossibility of nothingness yields a positive result. In this way, God is both infinite and eternal, and all quantity and quality is eternally and dynamically expressed. One can not question the truth of this without revealing a fundamental inadequacy of comprehension, since the logic pertaining to the necessity of God's existence can not be expressed in terms that are fully accessible to the individual human mind. We are but a tiny and brief manifestation of an infinite and eternal whole, and are therefore ill-equipped.
No, I don't know what you mean. You simply want me to put myself into a box, put a label on me, so that then, it would be easier for you (and some others) to deal with me. And my refusal to label myself like that, you call lack of backbone. Because those same scriptures that you say you are adhering to are telling you that nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON. But you are quite consciously staying away from ISKCON. Procured, collected, organized, translated, commented, edited, printed, published. Without ISKCON, the scriptures (that you refer to) wouldn't be as you know them. It only behooves to acknowledge the producer of one's resources. You aren't a member, nor in the process of actively pursuing to be one. You are "aloof" from ISKCON, and as we know, "Anyone who is trying to be aloof from this Krishna Consciousness Society and yet engage in Krishna consciousness is living in a great hallucination, for this is not possible." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Signal, Okay, seeing as you want to play silly beggars. Do the the characters of ''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'', in the respective scriptures claim that they are the God, The Supreme Being. Yes or No. In case you haven't noticed, you are being dealt with. Like I said, you wrap yourself in a cocoon thinking that unless you commit to something, you are somehow or other immuned. Maybe that works in pure philosophical discourses where everybody is on the same page. You're frightened of being dealt with by your own admission, so my (colourful) description is justified. You're not listening. How does it stop me from accepting them as ''spiritual authorities''? Same as above. Same as above. Please try and understand the question. Note the position from which the question is being asked. Very funny. Why didn't you complete the humour with some witty remark replacing the name ''Jesus'' with ''Jebus''? That would have sealed it. jan.
