Why does god have to be an entity?

[arfa brane]

What are you talking about.
I just gave you an answer.
I said i can make the distinction and I explained why you can't.
I even said it was the cornerstone of sanity.

You haven't given an answer to the question, and if you think you have there has to be something wrong with you.
You said you can make the distinction? You can distinguish between what you experience and what you are? And you explained why I can't? You're crazy, you've done no such thing, except perhaps in your mind.

but if you conclude that the experience grants you not only the status of god, but also the realization that everyone else is too, you have no good reason for clamming up

Yes I do have a good reason. So you got that wrong too.

 

[wynn]

What about YOU? What can YOU say that anyone cares about?

How many people log into this forum after over a month and half of absence just to communicate with you?

But logically, if you ask someone a question n times, and they don't answer it n times, but instead respond with "you said . . ." How can that be an answer? If that's all you got, you got no answer it seems. I really think you don't have one, and you can't answer because you don't even seem to recognise the question is directed at YOU, not back at who asked it.

Maybe you're crazy?

Maybe you don't realize you're talking to a human, and at that a human, who answers your question by reformulating it, noting why it needs to be reformulated.

Who are YOU to question MY point of view?

But I don't have to do that, there are plenty of individuals here who will do quite nicely; no definitions required. Just the usual panoply of individualists who feel they "need" to believe something, and tell everyone about it, then fail spectacularly at doing so.

Oh, the irony.


Anyway, you're demonstrating here a phenomenon that I find to be fairly typical among people who are into spirituality, religion and related topics. Namely, being enamored with hearing oneself talk (or seeing what one has written in a public space). It's a kind of non-communicative communication, a communicative non-communication ...

Ah, so many discussions about spirituality, religion and related topics are like this.

Carry on.

 

[arfa brane]

How many people log into this forum after over a month and half of absence just to communicate with you?

Since I don't care, how is that even remotely relevant?

Maybe you don't realize you're talking to a human, and at that a human, who answers your question by reformulating it, noting why it needs to be reformulated.

I do realise I'm posting stuff on a forum, and I presume humans read it and respond. That's easier than imagining the responses are from robots or aliens (but how can I tell, really?)

Anyway, you're demonstrating here a phenomenon that I find to be fairly typical among people who are into spirituality, religion and related topics. Namely, being enamored with hearing oneself talk (or seeing what one has written in a public space).

I find that too. Have you managed to discount the possibility that this is all an experiment of some kind. Is it possible I'm just posting whatever comes into my head, to see what responses I get? Maybe it's possible that I don't believe any of what I appear to believe? Maybe I'm also frustrated with the usual ideas that the spiritual types trot out with annoying regularity? I'm just sayin'.

It's a kind of non-communicative communication, a communicative non-communication ...

Yes, well. At the end of the day, the sun goes down . . .

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah, so many discussions about spirituality, religion and related topics are like this.

I was thinking something more like this

or this

 

[lightgigantic]

Have you managed to discount the possibility that this is all an experiment of some kind. Is it possible I'm just posting whatever comes into my head, to see what responses I get? Maybe it's possible that I don't believe any of what I appear to believe? Maybe I'm also frustrated with the usual ideas that the spiritual types trot out with annoying regularity? I'm just sayin'.

IOW

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Since I don't care, how is that even remotely relevant?

You said about LG: "What about YOU? What can YOU say that anyone cares about?"
I've given you a live example that someone, in this case I, does care about what he says.

Have you managed to discount the possibility that this is all an experiment of some kind. Is it possible I'm just posting whatever comes into my head, to see what responses I get? Maybe it's possible that I don't believe any of what I appear to believe? Maybe I'm also frustrated with the usual ideas that the spiritual types trot out with annoying regularity? I'm just sayin'.

You wouldn't be the first, and probably not the last to do so. We're used to this by now.

 

[wynn]

IOW

Not necessarily. I think Arf is hinting at some bigger and very relevant issues, but doesn't have the vocabulary and/or stamina to formulate them more precisely.

I find that just as in Western psychotherapy, the one thing that is taken for granted the most in discussions on spirituality, religion and related topics, is trust. Usually, this means that the preacher expects that those he is preaching to will listen and unconditionally accept what they are being told.
The consequences are similar as in Western psychiatry: just like the patient feels trapped and abused, and so develops a kind of trusting, complying external persona just so as to get out of the medical setting, while in reality not trusting the doctors, so people who feel trapped by a preacher/his words develop an alternative persona via which they hope to escape the pressure they feel.

Of course, one could argue that since it's a dog-eat-dog world, why should spirituality/religion be any exception? Why not promote spirituality/religion as yet another installment of the gladiator arena that life usually is, except that this time, the fighting goes on on the mental level?

 

[arfa brane]

Not necessarily. I think Arf is hinting at some bigger and very relevant issues, but doesn't have the vocabulary and/or stamina to formulate them more precisely.

Not necessarily. After "sparring" with lightgigantic, I concluded that he seemed unable to form a valid proposition. This particular point and his effort, such as it was, haven't really been looked at very hard.

He seems unable to see the mistake (and he made it). Hence, I see no compelling reason to discuss anything with him. I'm glad for you that you "care about what he says", but I can't place myself in that category. Although logic doesn't really have a lot to do with the subject "at hand", if you have something to say you could at least make it conform to logical rules rather than being patently contradictory.

I'm not trying to "correct" anything or anyone, I'm saying that I see no reason to argue with contradictions, I think there should be something better to do (actually I know there is). You know.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

The thread asks why God has to be an entity. What does it matter? God's been a lot of things, including a very large nuclear furnace. Theists have gotten away from inanimate objects as gods, too bad because at least you knew it was something tangible. I mean we could never prove beyond a doubt that an inanimate object is not God no matter how much someone believed it wasn't, no different than any invisible entities. People who spend 20 years in a monastery or receive a degree in theology can't prove anything about God either, that puts them on par with every and any ignoramus who attempts to describe God.

 

[lightgigantic]

The thread asks why God has to be an entity. What does it matter? God's been a lot of things, including a very large nuclear furnace. Theists have gotten away from inanimate objects as gods, too bad because at least you knew it was something tangible. I mean we could never prove beyond a doubt that an inanimate object is not God no matter how much someone believed it wasn't, no different than any invisible entities. People who spend 20 years in a monastery or receive a degree in theology can't prove anything about God either, that puts them on par with every and any ignoramus who attempts to describe God.

One could say the same thing about atheism.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

I was thinking something more like this

The apathy of those being preached to is a reflection of the apathy of the preachers.
The resistence of those being preached to is a reflection of the resistence of the preachers.

All too often, preachers simply do not care about the needs, interests and concerns of those they preach to, and yet they want them to convert (or at least to give up their current ways).
This is even more so when it comes to preaching to outsiders, to non-members.

Sure, nobody in their right mind would admit that they expect that other people will trust them unconditionally. And yet this is what preaching to outsiders, non-members comes down to. All the reasonings and justifications that I have ever seen any preacher give have been either circular (ie. requring that one already accept the system of beliefs and values that is being preached to them; accept it in order to see that it is true) or faulty (ie. using inferior pramanas as a means to identify a superior pramana).

As one of Wilde's characters says, Philanthropic people lose all sense of humanity. It is their distinguishing characteristic. And unfortunately, this is all too often too true when it comes to people who are into religion/spirituality. They claim to be acting for the good of those they preach to, they claim to wish them well - and yet they are completely deaf and blind to their pleas.

 

[wynn]

The thread asks why God has to be an entity. What does it matter? God's been a lot of things, including a very large nuclear furnace. Theists have gotten away from inanimate objects as gods, too bad because at least you knew it was something tangible. I mean we could never prove beyond a doubt that an inanimate object is not God no matter how much someone believed it wasn't, no different than any invisible entities. People who spend 20 years in a monastery or receive a degree in theology

can't prove anything about God either, that puts them on par with every and any ignoramus who attempts to describe God.

I think this is first and foremost a mark of a poor sense for interpersonal communication, definitely on the part of the theist, and sometimes also on the part of the theist's audience, but never solely on the part of the audience. Even though many theists would have us believe that it is solely the audience who is to blame.

But no. As long as theists are the ones who claim to be right, to know, to be better, to know better, to wish us well: this long the greater responsibility is on them.

One could say the same thing about atheism.

As a theist, you should do better.

 

[wynn]

Not necessarily. After "sparring" with lightgigantic, I concluded that he seemed unable to form a valid proposition. This particular point and his effort, such as it was, haven't really been looked at very hard.

He seems unable to see the mistake (and he made it). Hence, I see no compelling reason to discuss anything with him. I'm glad for you that you "care about what he says", but I can't place myself in that category. Although logic doesn't really have a lot to do with the subject "at hand", if you have something to say you could at least make it conform to logical rules rather than being patently contradictory.

I'm not trying to "correct" anything or anyone, I'm saying that I see no reason to argue with contradictions, I think there should be something better to do (actually I know there is). You know.

Theists of various denominations will typically take issue with anyone who utters the words "I am God." These theists' stated concern is typically that such a person claiming to be God will mislead and betray innocent, albeit ignorant people, and theists shouldn't let this happen.

Of course, some of those people who utter "I am God," are so inarticulate that they couldn't get a street thug to kick their ass, what to speak of amassing vast numbers of followers.

Although Arf here has managed to get one follower, ha ha.

 

[arfa brane]

Theists of various denominations will typically take issue with anyone who utters the words "I am God." These theists' stated concern is typically that such a person claiming to be God will mislead and betray innocent, albeit ignorant people, and theists shouldn't let this happen.

Whereas my concern is that people who are told they aren't God are being mislead. But I'm not sure how much I should care, so I don't care.

And I think that "uttering" the words has no effect, it changes nothing. This is because you first should realise that it's true, so that saying or thinking "the words" is kind of irrelevant (even though it's true).
Oh yeah: the last thing I want is a "following". Or even an idea of one.

 

[lightgigantic]

Theists of various denominations will typically take issue with anyone who utters the words "I am God." These theists' stated concern is typically that such a person claiming to be God will mislead and betray innocent, albeit ignorant people, and theists shouldn't let this happen.

Of course, some of those people who utter "I am God," are so inarticulate that they couldn't get a street thug to kick their ass, what to speak of amassing vast numbers of followers.

Although Arf here has managed to get one follower, ha ha.

Lol
No doubt he will say it's only your definition of God that there be a requirement to be articulate enough to at least get beat up by a street thug or to present a coherent argument that resonates with more than one person

 

[lightgigantic]

Whereas my concern is that people who are told they aren't God are being mislead. But I'm not sure how much I should care, so I don't care.

And I think that "uttering" the words has no effect, it changes nothing. This is because you first should realise that it's true, so that saying or thinking "the words" is kind of irrelevant (even though it's true).
Oh yeah: the last thing I want is a "following". Or even an idea of one.

Misanthropy isn't really compatible with a vision of the universal form .... no doubt this is yet another thing you don't care about ....

 

[arfa brane]

Misanthropy isn't really compatible with a vision of the universal form .... no doubt this is yet another thing you don't care about ....

Well actually I don't understand it, or why you thought it was relevant.

What does it mean?

And as for your choosing to dwell on the subject of "a requirement", there is no requirement. Unless it's that you are human and want to know why so many people seem to believe they know all about the subject of God, existence, why you think, what you should think, why you shouldn't think this or that. Eventually, what you end up with is a big headache. I suppose you could rationalise that the subject is one that leads to headaches.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well actually I don't understand it, or why you thought it was relevant.

well you just said you don't care if people get mislead ...
I assume you don't need me to explain how a callous regard for people suffering is compatible with misanthropy

But I guess you can get out of this bind by saying that knowing you are god in no way solves any problems of suffering, so you can't really describe it as an elevating state capable of solving anyone's problems

And as for your choosing to dwell on the subject of "a requirement", there is no requirement. Unless it's that you are human and want to know why so many people seem to believe they know all about the subject of God, existence, why you think, what you should think, why you shouldn't think this or that. Eventually, what you end up with is a big headache. I suppose you could rationalise that the subject is one that leads to headaches.

Its impossible to talk of any sort of knowledge that doesn't have some bench mark of requirement.
IOW a world view that isn't thusly equipped is totally incapable of isolating delusion.

Once again, we can safely assume this is another thing you don't care about.

:shrug:

 

[arfa brane]

well you just said you don't care if people get mislead ...
I assume you don't need me to explain how a callous regard for people suffering is compatible with misanthropy

I said no such thing. I assume you must be blind.
What I said was I don't care if someone misleads you by telling you you aren't God. But you would believe they are telling you the truth, because you seem to believe that it is true (that you aren't, or can't be). What I don't care about is that you're intentionally deluding yourself in this regard, because you are God. If you don't believe it, well, good for you, but what do you think I'm supposed to do about it?

But I guess you can get out of this bind by saying that knowing you are god in no way solves any problems of suffering, so you can't really describe it as an elevating state capable of solving anyone's problems

There is no bind, except the one you're imagining.

Its impossible to talk of any sort of knowledge that doesn't have some bench mark of requirement.
IOW a world view that isn't thusly equipped is totally incapable of isolating delusion.

Once again, we can safely assume this is another thing you don't care about.

The requirement for experience would therefore be a working pair of eyes, ears, and the other senses. What I don't care about is your or anyone else's idea of what the meaning of experience is supposed to be, mainly because I believe you have no idea.

 

[lightgigantic]

I said no such thing. I assume you must be blind.
What I said was I don't care if someone misleads you by telling you you aren't God. But you would believe they are telling you the truth, because you seem to believe that it is true (that you aren't, or can't be). What I don't care about is that you're intentionally deluding yourself in this regard, because you are God.

so you don't care whether people accept the idea the idea that they are god or not (which then has implications that you don't care whether they suffer or not ... assuming you aren't dumbing down the term further to suggest that being god means one is capable of alleviating suffering on a personal or collective level in any shape or form .... which, given your previous style, is certainly something we can't rule out I guess)

Or as you said in your typically incoherent manner

Whereas my concern is that people who are told they aren't God are being mislead. But I'm not sure how much I should care, so I don't care.

You are concerned yet you don't care.
:shrug:

If you don't believe it, well, good for you, but what do you think I'm supposed to do about it?

Given that you also believe you are god, something I guess.

But then even you are reluctant to say what it is you are capable of performing/accomplishing in this supposedly divine state (aside from an increased post count on sciforums) ... which of course just sends you down the well worn path of incoherence.

But then you don't care about being incoherent.
:shrug:

There is no bind, except the one you're imagining.The requirement for experience would therefore be a working pair of eyes, ears, and the other senses.

Unfortunately knowledge doesn't work like that ... but as I said thats probably also something you don't care about

What I don't care about is your or anyone else's idea of what the meaning of experience is supposed to be, mainly because I believe you have no idea.

obviously there is not much you do care about ... ironically not even how misanthropy compliments a universal vision.