No, we are not talking about proof. we are talking about reasoning behind a claim. The problem with solipsism is that this is not its strong point No I mean when anyone reads yours posts. If you disagree, feel free to reference anything where you explain how you effectively answered this question Sure, there is a time and a place for such inquiry. Infact I have even discussed the very topic on this forum several times but at the moment the topic is you and your comments to the effect "I am god" and how your usage of the word is, to say the least, highly unconventional. I don't aim to. I do however, go to pains to examine the words I use when I discuss topics I feel are important yet you didn't feel that way when you said "I am god" ... so here we are :shrug: will the irony never end? :shrug:
Right. So you're speaking for/to a hypotherical audience. I think what's interesting is your estimation of the value of your contributions to the topic. What's interesting is that (my) making such a claim seems to engender . . . let's call it antipathy. I get that a lot. You seem to think I should care about your reactions, I get that a lot too. Since I have to ask: what happens if I don't care?
. No Nothing hypothetical about it. If it was otherwise you would be able to reference your posts. I think what's interesting is the lack of thinking you invest in your statements An obvious pattern in your behavior is emerging .....both on off this forum Then I guess you will find that no one will take you seriously and treat you like a nonsense on a wide range of issues. :shrug: When you get tired of calling yourself god you can start calling yourself the President or jesus. It won't involve you having to employ a new line of reasoning than your current fantasy
I don't follow this (go figure). What does being able to reference my posts have to do with, you know, anything? You have some pretty strange things to say. This lot is frankly baffling. But carry on regardless, won't you? (I'm sure you can manage it). But you're here to fill in the gaps, so we're all good. Yes, the obvious pattern is my propensity to engage people like you in discussions that go nowhere about a subject that is, well, entirely subjective. But then, unless you've engaged some kind of private investigator to follow me around, how can you possibly know what I do "off forum" (??). That one was a little bit creepy, dude. Well, I couldn't possibly hope to achieve your level of fantasy, now could I? You appear to think that it's about understanding what a spoken or written word should mean; it's about having the "right" definitions. Gee I wish I could do that (the hell I do). It's all been about what you think I should be thinking, it seems. But you haven't been able to say anything coherent about why what you think I am thinking is a problem. You haven't understood what I've said, obviously. I don't care though.
It would help your case that your reasoning is coherent and my criticism is simply subjective Coming from a guy who says they're god and balks at defining the experience beyond psychotropic drug use ..... The obvious pattern seems to be your propensity to say things totally oblivious to what you said a few moments earlier .... which might account for why your interactions with others degenerate into antagonism ....of course letting fly with nonsense you are god probably doesn't help matters any more either ...... Given the substance of your contributions I don't think anyone can compete with your level of achievement Its about having***a***definition ... which is kind of why anyone chooses one particular word over another ... For me to criticize your definition you would have to first offer one ....actually I have been criticizing you for attempting to engage in a philosophical discussion on the strength of solipsism
He does have a point, though: If we posit that 1. all living beings are parts and parcels of God, thus have the same nature as God, 2. maya is impermanent, then it is reasonable to propose that everyone has a kind of intuitive knowledge of God, a "God sense". This is a kind of knowledge that cannot be precisely verbalized, but exists in a vague sense. Note how there exist different kinds of yoga, jnana yoga being just one of them. Further, to borrow a couple of salient points from other religions: In Buddhism, they say there are three kinds of buddhas, all three are enlightened, but only two of them are able to teach the Dharma to others. Romans 12: 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. 1 Cor. 12: 4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. /.../ 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? In short, many people may have or at least claim to a "sense of God" or an "experience of God", but not all are able to engage in a philosophical discussion about it. Not to cheapen things, but - what kind of philosophical discussion about devotional service and theology could you have with someone like Mother Yasoda?
I have offered a definition, however, the definition I'm using is: "I am that". What would you say the distinction is between who you are and what you experience? Note that I've also been criticizing your definition, since you appear to believe that the subject must be defined by using ordinary words and their ordinary meanings. I'm saying you can't really "define" God with words, you can however, "define" God by realising that you experience God. It seems to me to be a much more useful definition, because you don't "need" words. You seem to be having a hard time with this, which I attribute to your belief in the "power" of the meaning of words. But words can't describe a lot of things, their "power" fails everyone at some point. Well, suppose I reason that I don't need a definition, or any words that have definitions, and then I sit around wondering why there are people who suppose otherwise? People like you, say. Someone who says God has a definition in words probably doesn't know what God is.
I don't think he is saying we are merely "godly" or "divine" Of course its kind of difficult to approximate what he is trying to say with the word "god", but he has outright rejected the notion of establishing a distinction between god and the living entity, which has kind of reduced the scope of his outlook in many matters I'm pretty sure its safe that none of them exist in a state of being completely non-different from god one would think that a consequence of such "sense's" or "experience's" would be the ability to elucidate something about why one choose to tag the word "god" to them the discussion probably wouldn't go well if I said I was her son
Which is typical for people who operate from an intuitive (or ritualistic) level of understanding and practice. There have been plenty of posters here who claimed to know full well who God is etc., but whose arguments boiled down to "I know it in my heart of hearts." I don't think so. I think having the expectation that others would be able to explain their innermost beliefs to one's satisfaction - I think expecting such from others is crossing personal boundaries, forcibly prying into another person's spiritual privacy. Philosophizing should be reserved for like-minded people. Sure. My point is that some people may be very good at discharging devotional service, but do very poorly at explaining it or teaching it. How much more this is the case for those who don't seem particularly good at discharging devotional service to begin with. How could they talk about it - they don't even have much of a vocabulary for it. But that doesn't change that they may nevertheless have the spark of devotional service in them, however odd they may look to an outside observer. Other than that - Trying to have a serious conversation with someone who claims to be God? Srsly? An online verbal kicking and pissing are pathetic. Ask the guy out for a real confrontation and request he lift that mountain - or at least a chair - with his left little finger. That ought to reveal a bit more! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and what is that? quite a lot if I can neither establish what I am or what I experience There is nothing ordinary about suggesting the living entity and god operate out of distinct ontological categories. What is ordinary however is to partake of a conditioned existence (IOW an existence characterized by limitation ... whether it be an inability to remember events several days ago or prevent one's molars from rotting) and not recognize this distinction Technically you can't really define anything with words. For instance i cannot accurately define the smell of a rose with a keyboard. What we can do with words however is establish a context and relationship between things. So for instance, if I say "I have the experience of smelling a rose" and then, by way of example, proceed to draw a picture of an antelope and a make phone call regarding a quote to get it framed, there is a drastic anomaly with the words i choose to use to describe my experience. Sure, I can say "I don't care what you think of accurate definitions of "smelling" and "rose", I know by dint of my experience that i have smelled a rose" ... but , existential equivocations surrounding the nature of experience and expression aside, the fact remains key terms I choose to use in describing my experience are inappropriate (or at least, require further explanation ... like I dunno, maybe "smelling" is a slang word I use for calling someone on the phone and Mr. Rose is the local picture framer) If you are choosing particular words over others, you are already utilizing that power. Even if you are simply doing it as an experiment in surrealism or automatic writing, its the power of meaning in words that grants any value to anything you say. There is no escaping the power of meaning of words ... except for maybe this : vbuidfsjvh afsbvhjbfhjv fbvhjbfjv fsbvhjbvhjabskquiowfjkladsbva bm,x asx as cv adsvj ..... which, as a detail, is a poor argument for many things, including the non/existence/nature of god They do however describe specific things at the exclusion of others. So for instance if I say "I am the president", it behooves me (at least for as long as I don't generously dip into solipsism) to explain why I claim such a thing despite displaying an absence of qualities associated with the president. IOW if a word suggests an increased scope of influence/power/capacity ("president"), there are other experiences that readily typify it. So to bring the topic to bear, the fact that you indicate a state ("I know I am god") distinct from another state ("you do not know you are god") and with a professed inability to elucidate anything of your experience/knowledge to distinguish the two clearly indicates you have a problem beyond mere semiotics Once again, you don't score any extra points for slipping back into solipsism. No doubt you will retort "I don't need to score anything", but please remember the issue at hand is your coherence.... and if I guess you don't feel the need to support that, you can just as easily say you are jesus, a giraffe, aldolph hitler or all three. :shrug: Someone who says they have experience of god and who cannot distinguish it from not having the experience definitely doesn't have the experience.
In that case, you might have something like the ultimate existential problem. You know, the one that goes "am I awake, or dreaming I'm awake?. On the other hand, I would say most people can 'establish' that experience is part of 'conscious existence'. But the question remains: can you distinguish what you experience from what you are, since that would mean knowing you are something that is independent of experience, surely? What could that be? I'm suggesting the "ontological categories" aren't separate, but the same. What distinction? Who professed an inability to elucidate anything? You realise a lack of interest doesn't imply a lack of ability? You aren't reading something that I didn't write, are you? Or maybe you are. Someone who says what you just said is grasping at ontological straws. Are you saying I can't tell if I'm looking at something? I can't tell if I'm listening to music, or any kind of sound? I can't tell if I'm awake or dreaming?
You asked "What would you say the distinction is between who you are and what you experience?" I suggested that, given your complete reluctance to go anywhere in the direction of explaining who you are (sure you say I am that ... but you can't answer what is that) or what you experience is (aside from clinging to the phrase "I am god" without any justification beyond solipsism) the room for distinction is practically unlimited sure. I am suggesting that this requires that you are necessarily dumbing down the term "god", since you readily admit you can't surmount a toothache while insisting you are god the distinction between being conditioned and unconditioned, between being limited and unlimited, between being dependent and in independent, between being contingent on many things and the origin of everything, between forgetting what you had for breakfast 9 days ago and being the reservoir of all remembrance and knowledge , .... and so on and so on you .... a dozen or so posts on this subject and you are still dodging you realize a dozen posts doesn't imply a lack of interest? on the contrary, its the absence of what you write which is causing all your problems On the contrary, grasping at ontological straws reaches its high point with solipsism if you can't qualify it in any meaningful manner distinct from if you never looked at it, sure If you can't qualify it in any meaningful manner distinct from not hearing the sound, sure again, if you can't meaningfully distinguish them, what on earth (aside from solipsism of course) would make you think otherwise :shrug:
Perhaps word are entity's Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! just kidding. the word good looks a lot like the word God Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So looking at something also requires me to qualify the experience of looking, to make sure it's distinct from not looking? I can't "just look"? And hearing something requires this qualification as well, so no "just listen" either? So if I can't "meaningfully" distinguish being awake from being asleep, then . . . I have to say, this discussion is getting more ridiculous, and it was pretty ridiculous. This for instance: Here, you refer my question back to me, which suggests you have no answer. Why is that? Why don't you want to try?
See, the initial question was: "Why does God have to be an entity?". Implying the possible conclusion that God isn't an entity. First of all, what do we understand this word: "entity", to mean? To me at least, it means something "alive", like a bacteria is alive, or a cat is alive. Hence the question seems to reference a notion of God not being "alive" in the sense animals or plants are. But then I claim that "I am" this entity, and "you are" too. But of course, someone comes into the discussion with "So you're saying you're omnipotent, you know everything, etc, because that's my definition, which is accurate, it's a standard definition." Then: "No, I didn't say I am something ("God") that corresponds to your definition. If you want a definition, go look in a book. But then you might end up believing that you can understand what God is by reading books. I'm saying you don't need to do that, but there's nothing stopping you from doing it. Except maybe there is more involved than understanding what words mean."
You can look and hear and whatever, but you are not looking at anything meaningful. Kind of like me saying Here is a picture I found on the internet of you sitting on the toilet, but its invisible : You are looking at it, right? Brilliant, innit? no more ridiculous than you saying you are god or me saying I just posted an invisible picture of you sitting on the toilet err .. the question was originally thrown at you (which, as a detail, you haven't answered in about a dozen or so posts yet) , which you tried to deflect on me. Technically its called a red herring nice try though ... the more obvious question is why you can't answer questions that were originally directed at you without attempting every trick in the book :shrug:
I think you will find that they were talking about the notion of god being a personality or an individual If you are not even me, then its clear there is something fishy about your claim you are also god. the problem is that you don't give a definition, period. On the contrary, if you want to use a word, I suggest you do precisely this. Otherwise you might as well say you are smelling a rose when in fact you are drawing a picture of an antelope and calling someone on the phone to get a framing quote certainly sounds better than believing you can understand god based on experiences and terms you can't elucidate.... given the lack of substance you have provided you could just as easily be arguing you are aldolph hitler, a giraffe, jesus or all three Granted that knowledge is always more involved than its mere theoretical components, but that is not my issue with what you are trying to advocate. You talk about more involved understanding yet you haven't even presented anything beyond solipsism :shrug:
lol actually the invisible picture I posted of you sitting on the toilet (here I will post it again): (there we go) has more meaning than what you say since at least I am not using the words I use to describe it in some far flung manner .. and after all, you are looking at it, right?
Lightgigantic: I find your reasoning quite confusing, which is why I have little enthusiasm for a discussion with you. You seem to have a rather strange attachment to words and what they mean. But keep up the good work, ok? And thanks for all the fish.
