Defining what is God.

Krishna was the tip of the ice-berg, so think many of his devotees.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we have three general ways in which we can interpret omnipresent (and of course, countless details).

One of which is the direction you have seem to go in (if I don’t misunderstand), in which omnipresence is somehow a physical trait. A pantheistic view of omnipresence, so to speak – all of existence IS God – God IS all of existence.

Another possibility is a God with omnipresent vision, which, essentially is omniscience combined with omnipotence. Think of the Wicked Witch of the West, looking in her crystal ball to see Dorothy (though to a much greater scale, of course). Though SHE is not there, by seeing what is there and having her power able to reach where she is, she is effectively there.
The way I imagine this God in my head is a spider on a web. Without looking, a spider can tell exactly where a bug in his web is, how much it weighs, how large it is, how much it is struggling, how much energy it has etc. all from the vibrations the spider feels on the web. God is that spider on a vast multi-dimensional web made up of, for lack of a better word, the aether. By picking up on the vibrations in the aether, he knows everything that is going on. He is a being that has perfected the Vedic ideal of tapping into the prana and akasha.

The third option I see is, as I pointed out earlier, a God without corporeal body. The “holy-sprit” as it were. God IS the prana. He is not all, but pervades all.

I disagree.
Although I am not certain that “perfection” is something that exists outside of bounds (i.e. something can be perfect FOR this or that, but not singularly perfect in and of itself as a trait) – which is why I did not include “perfect” in my opener – if something were to be perfect, that thing must certainly be ideally adaptable to all situations, and foreseeable & unforseeable futures and all possible changes. It must be in a constant state of flux and have the ability to adjust any aspect of itself instantaneously.

I think this all goes back to what I said about omnipresence.
If you do not see God as a pantheistic entity, none of this would necessarily flow from having an eternal nature.
If you consider God to be eternal, and separate from his creations, that is another story.
If God is eternal, but not all, he could have very well decided to create the physical universe within the void, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Allah is not considered an 'entity' to Muslims, therefore this definition does not apply to a great many people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One Raven:

Yes, I am essentially affirming a pantheistic variation.

I like your metaphor of the web here. Very well put forth.

But I object to it on this foundation: Is not spatial existence a perfectable trait? That is, it seems logically obvious that the perfection of spatiality is infinite space and a perfect being - which must have at least soem form of spatial existence - would have to be perfectly extended in space, no?

If he prevades, but is not all, is he not lacking somewhere? That is, he might be extremely large, but would he not be not found in someplace or another?

I think there are at least two ways to categorize perfection:

1. The perfection of utility which you speak of.

2. The perfection of logical extremes.

The last is objective, the second at least partially subjective, or rather, situational. However, considering God is held to be omnipotent, and also omnipresent, then anything which is done in existence is ultimately a part of God. That is to say, the "perfect hammer for that job" is also a quality of God, in so much as God would necessarily constitute that hammer.

Moreover, if God is omnipotent, it means he can do anything the best way possible, no?

Definitely. That is the main schism between Pantheistic and Theistic systems.

Supposing the possibility of a void, yes.

 

I thought my challenge was about the competition of religions, which requires the definition of religion. Which may or may not include a different entity.

Since I picked the Greek gods as my religion and you seem to be some kind of creationist Christian, we can safely say that our religions are mutually exclusive, thus the definition of gods are not particulary important for the debate. But let's not spoil the game, definitions can only help...

What would be more important is the set of rules. The standars. Obviously if we argue by different standards then there is no understanding and the debate is moot. So I see 2 ways of setting the standards:

1. The scientific way: history, logic, facts, etc.
2. The supernatural way: beliefs, testimonies, witnesses, feelings,miracles,etc.

There is no point in mixing the 2.

So if you accept one of these standrads, state which one (I can do both) and NAME your religion!

 

but allah is defined by qualities, so you can still play the game - I mean you could say I can conceive of a god that does not have an individual existence - the next step is that you have to establish why not having an individual existence is superior to having an existence

 

That's an easy one, we use an estimate, therefore the circumference of a circle can never be clearly defined. (I'm no math whiz so I could be wrong)Represent means symbolize. I know it's possible to symbolize God, but can you define it? Pi is defined by a ratio who's actual value can never be determined.

 

Nice take on omnipresence. Omnipresence itself seems to be defined before defining God.

Abrahamic God is not physically present in his created world. This is to say, immanence is not the property of God, he is distinct from his creation. The whole creation is his own imagination, where he cannot 'physically' present in his own imagination, his omniscience can double up as omnipresence.

Vedic God is immanent too, and the distinction between God and 'creation' is due to illusion. He is omnimax with ease !

Buddhist ultimate reality does not require any omnimax properties by virtue of being the supreme reality.

 

understanding god is quitethe same - no body understands him in full, but an understanding of god can be sufficient to effect a practical effect (ie you can know enough about god to be socialized around his service, which is more than sufficient to come to the platform of liberation)

 

Prince James

My point was that god is actually the platform of infinity - in other words all things that appear infinite are as such due to resting on the potency of god, just like smoke rests on the potency of fire - Since god is omnipresent, the quality of space is infinite - not the other way around (which would make space superior to god)

Not sure what you mean by nothing can be greater than itself

What prevents an infinite object penetrating a finite sphere? In other words why can't god manifest himself directly in the material atmosphere?

 

:bugeye:

 

lightgigantic:

Does not God depend upon space in order to be omnipresent? For one could not speak of omnipresence without speaking of space, could one not?

You admit that it is not a flaw for God to not be greater than himself, yes? That is to say, God can be as great as himself (to be himself, in essence) without a flaw, as otherwise it is absurd, yes?

Can one cram an elephant into a paper cup? So too can one not cram an infinite God into finite space.

 

Prince James

Not necessarily - omnipresent just means present everywhere

One can also not speak of fire without heat or smoke - in other words you haven't provided how you distinguish between cause and effect.

I still can't catch what you are saying - whether god can/cannot be potentially greater than himself, whether god can/cannot be better than himself because he is flawless or perhaps something else ....

Therefore the cup does not contain the elephant - but the elephants presence is still within in.
Perhaps a more fitting example (that wouldn't innvolve a demolished paper cup) would be an elephant standing in a small pond with 50 cm of water.
In other words god can manifest himself in this world, but the limits of it (laws of time and space) cannot contain him

 

Lightgigantic:

Where is everywhere where there is no space?

I'm getting to it.

Basically: You admit that it is absurd to say that God is greater than himself, right? That it is ridiculous to say that God is not as great as himself, either negatively or positively.

Yet can God retain the fullness of his majesty in a limited form? Certainly not, for his restrained form will be, by necessity, inferior to the superior form.

 

I knew LG would not take up the challenge...

Looks like he likes to talk about the general idea of god (which is fine) but when we get down to the specifics, he is all quiet.

Of course I knew he would do that, and I just offered my challenge to make my point: it is not just theists vs. atheists but there is a HUGE competition/argument among theists too, so they should first figure out which religion is the TRUE ONE, before try to challenge atheists.

After all, who would want to sign up for the WRONG religion???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Prince james

the moment you have space i sthe moment you have god permeating it - just like the moment you have smoke follows themoment you have fire

In essence, yes, although in the vedas there are distinctions between the supreme personality of godhead and plenary portions of the supreme personality of godhead (for instance the expansion of god that creates this entire material creation is mentioned as a plenary portion of a plenary portion of a plenary portion of a plenary portion of the supreme personality of godhead)

who said he is limited? Is an elephant any smaller because it is standing in 50cm of water?

Therefore the form of Krishna is described as transcendental - in other words there is no evidence to state that he is limited by appearing in this world (actually he descends with his associates, paraphernalia and even abode)

BG 4.6: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

and even more specifically

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

In otherwords just because god has a personal form in this world, doesn't mean that he has a personal form like you or me ( or even like that of an exalted mystic)

 

quit whining and discuss the specifics

 

LightGigantic:

Then God was not infinite before, because he did not occupy something which is entirely new.

Then consider this: If God is space, then space needn't be considered as superior to God, even if it shares in eternity. It is only in the false distinction betwixt the twain that demands we conceive of space as superior to God in this system. In essence, so long as you connect God to it, one needn't affirm the absurdity that space would be superior to God.

Did not Earthly Krishna have finite dimensions? When he was holding the reigns to Arjuna's horse, for instance? Or standing on the Earth and preaching to him about God?

To have four limbs is to be limited in and of itself.

 

I would, but I still don't know YOUR religion. Please feel free to attack my Greeks...

 

It is useless to state "I am a worshipper of the greek gods" unless you can determine what are the qualities of the greek gods - like for instance if I say "I like to eat hot food" but I am unable to define the qualities by which hot food is recognizable I don't make for much of a discussion about hot food.