Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
a (maybe) new definition of God
    #18836065 - 09/13/13 08:58 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

I think one problem atheists are having is that they have a very poor understanding of what us mystics, spiritual  and religious folk mean by the word God.

Let me attempt to explain what God is for the theologically challenged.

The first thing you can bring to mind is the concept of the spectrum. Things do not exist in a vacuum, rather they exist as sets of selections manifest out of wider set of potentials.

For example, when you turn on the radio and find a station, that stations exists as a specific frequency which is but apart of a larger spectrum of frequencies which exist along a continuum or spectrum.

In a similar way, your current experience in life is built from a a specific set of circumstances which exists as a set taken from a larger whole, which includes all potential sets of circumstances you could find yourself in. FOr instance, you might have brown hair. That would be one circumstance out of a larger set which includes all hair colors. Every aspect of your life can thought of as a selection from a set of potentials.


It's sort of like numbers even. You cannot have the number 7 all by itself, it only makes sense as part of a wider set. Imagine if 7 was the only number. It would no longer be useful for anything.

So, once you have understood that your life is a manifest set of circumstances out of a wider range of potential circumstances it should become clear that there is no separate entity that constitutes you.

Just like the number 7 is completely and wholly a number (a circumstance) and nothing but a number, the circumstances in your life are mere circumstances, together they form an experience you call your life but looking closely you will that there is no separate entity that is having that experience. the "you" you experience as the subject, yourself, itself is actually just another circumstance.

In other words, lets assume you could be represented as a set of numbers with each number representing a circumstance in the set which makes up you life. So if we take the set 34 26 23 64 42, that set has individuality. It is unique and distinct. ANd yet at the same time, it is not of a diferent nature than the larger set of numbers. Where would this other nature come from?

So why do you consider yourself an individual? What makes up the separate you in your opinion? Where can it be found?

So to get an idea of the absurdity of atheism from the point of view of a theist, imagine one of those containers will all the floating balls with numbers on 'em used for lottery drawings. Each drawing selects a set of numbers from the larger pool of potentials. Now the atheist readily admits that the drawn set of numbers (himself) exists. Very few atheists deny their own existence. And yet how can you possibly admit that the set exists but deny the pool it came from? It makes no sense. How you gonna get a set of specifics without a larger pool of potentials?

So God is the pool of unmanifest potentials which becomes manifest as actualities.

This is why I dont want to hear any more comparisons of God to the tooth fairy or flying spaggeti monster. Those are both examples of sets of manifested potentials. God is the word that designates the unmanifest.  It is logically unsound to compare the manifest to the unmanifest as if they were the same.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFishOilTheKid
Ascended
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 27 days, 53 minutes
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: Deviate]
    #18836072 - 09/13/13 09:04 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

You could call it the 'unmoved mover.'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: Deviate]
    #18836613 - 09/13/13 11:48 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

What you describe, I just call the universe. God traditionally meant a omnipotent, omniscient, conscious being that created the universe, or one of many powerful beings that create and govern the universe. I don't see a reason to redefine God when we already have the word universe that fits your description.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: White Beard]
    #18838076 - 09/13/13 06:25 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


So to get an idea of the absurdity of atheism from the point of view of a theist, imagine one of those containers will all the floating balls with numbers on 'em used for lottery drawings. Each drawing selects a set of numbers from the larger pool of potentials. Now the atheist readily admits that the drawn set of numbers (himself) exists. Very few atheists deny their own existence. And yet how can you possibly admit that the set exists but deny the pool it came from? It makes no sense. How you gonna get a set of specifics without a larger pool of potentials?

So God is the pool of unmanifest potentials which becomes manifest as actualities.





I am always amazed at how those who are determined to believe in god will find incredibly creative ways to rationalize their belief.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Edited by clam_dude (09/13/13 06:27 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecez
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,854
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: Deviate]
    #18838109 - 09/13/13 06:32 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

At the end of the day no definition is sufficient for an atheist.
They want proof.

You can't provide proof past your own independent rationalizations or someone else's experience.

They will always be able to find a hole in your logic.

I think theists should even question their logic cause we really don't know.


But if I was a bettin' man...:wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: White Beard]
    #18838369 - 09/13/13 07:31 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

White Beard said:
What you describe, I just call the universe. God traditionally meant a omnipotent, omniscient, conscious being that created the universe, or one of many powerful beings that create and govern the universe. I don't see a reason to redefine God when we already have the word universe that fits your description.




The universe does NOT fit my description. The universe is manifest just like we are. God is the unmanifest.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: clam_dude]
    #18838394 - 09/13/13 07:38 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:



I am always amazed at how those who are determined to believe in god will find incredibly creative ways to rationalize their belief.




I think its more likely you are the one trying to rationalize your beliefs. The traditional view of God is fine for me, I am very satisfied with it. However many people, such as yourself, seem unable to make sense of it. Hence I attempted to explain God in a different way, in the hopes that it would aid in the understands for folks like yourself.

You then decided that the reason I made this post, was to rationalize God, most likely because that makes it easier for you to believe I am wrong, hence putting less pressure on yourself to focus on the validity of what I actually said.

I am most satisfied with worshipping the Biblical God and have no need to create posts like these for my own benefit. I created this thread to try help those who are NOT satisfied by the concept of God as presented in the Bible. I was hoping to make them see how their comparisons to tooth fairies and flying pasta monsters miss a very important point, which really reflects a poor understanding on THEIR part.


Edited by Deviate (09/13/13 07:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFishOilTheKid
Ascended
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 27 days, 53 minutes
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: Deviate]
    #18838426 - 09/13/13 07:45 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

There is actually something with tentacles that can reach in your eye and manipulate your brain and what it contains.  Best evidence for the flying spaghetti monster I've ever experienced.:thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: Deviate]
    #18838822 - 09/13/13 09:08 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Deviate said:
Quote:



I am always amazed at how those who are determined to believe in god will find incredibly creative ways to rationalize their belief.




I think its more likely you are the one trying to rationalize your beliefs. The traditional view of God is fine for me, I am very satisfied with it. However many people, such as yourself, seem unable to make sense of it. Hence I attempted to explain God in a different way, in the hopes that it would aid in the understands for folks like yourself.

You then decided that the reason I made this post, was to rationalize God, most likely because that makes it easier for you to believe I am wrong, hence putting less pressure on yourself to focus on the validity of what I actually said.

I am most satisfied with worshipping the Biblical God and have no need to create posts like these for my own benefit. I created this thread to try help those who are NOT satisfied by the concept of God as presented in the Bible. I was hoping to make them see how their comparisons to tooth fairies and flying pasta monsters miss a very important point, which really reflects a poor understanding on THEIR part.




Ok I have heard you define God about five different ways now.  It's easy to argue for the existence of something when you can arbitrarily define it as whatever you want. 

The only reason I can see that a person would resort to defining something so vaguely is that they are determined to believe in it no matter what.  Inform me if there is another reason. 

You say you believe in the biblical god...well do you think that this definition of god "God is the pool of unmanifest potentials which becomes manifest as actualities," which you provided, created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th?  Or does this "pool of unmanifest potentials" condone slavery?  Or is it just me...unable to make sense of it?


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: clam_dude]
    #18841593 - 09/14/13 04:35 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Ok I have heard you define God about five different ways now.  It's easy to argue for the existence of something when you can arbitrarily define it as whatever you want.





defining something different ways doesnt mean the definitions are arbitrary. lets say you had never seen a car and i was trying to describe one to you, i could define a car as a land boat. I could define a car as a container made of metal on wheels. I could define a car as an airplane born without wings. I could define a car in many different ways, but that doesnt mean that the definitions are arbritrary. Its only a matter of you failing to understand the first definition so i try again.

Quote:


The only reason I can see that a person would resort to defining something so vaguely is that they are determined to believe in it no matter what.  Inform me if there is another reason. 




you're still hung up on the question of god's existence apparently. Gods existence is not in question. I am trying to describe something to you. Tradionally it has been called God. If you dont want to call it that, that's fine. If it will make you happy, we can agree that God doesn't exist. But now I am still left with the issue of trying to describe the thing I was previously calling God, because that thing still exists regardless of what you call it. That thing, as I have explained, is the source of happiness. Finding it means to stop looking for happiness in the world, completely and forever, and look only to that thing. That is a very challenging thing for humans to do. Even though we can see the folly in banking our happiness on a certain circumstance in the world, we still end up doing it all the time. Even though we may understand on some level that we are just setting ourselves up for disappointment, we still want things to go our way before we really feel comfortable allowing ourselves to feel content and happy. I am saying that if we want to ever actually be truly happy, we must let this tendency go.

Quote:


You say you believe in the biblical god...well do you think that this definition of god "God is the pool of unmanifest potentials which becomes manifest as actualities," which you provided, created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th?  Or does this "pool of unmanifest potentials" condone slavery?  Or is it just me...unable to make sense of it?




God doesn't exist.


Edited by Deviate (09/14/13 05:00 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: Deviate]
    #18842139 - 09/14/13 07:21 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Deviate said:
Quote:


You say you believe in the biblical god...well do you think that this definition of god "God is the pool of unmanifest potentials which becomes manifest as actualities," which you provided, created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th?  Or does this "pool of unmanifest potentials" condone slavery?  Or is it just me...unable to make sense of it?




God doesn't exist.




I'm not sure what you're saying. You're saying you don't believe that "god" created the earth in 6 days? 

I'm just trying to pin down your definition of god.  Because, as you said earlier about defining a car, there are many possible definitions for any given thing.  But these definitions will undoubtedly converge to describe the same thing.  If a car is described as a land-boat, then this is specific information that tells you it's a land vehicle of some sort.  It's not a full definition, but it's specific information. 

That's what's missing from the definitions of god you have provided.  The way you describe god is basically the same as how pantheists describe it - "God is everything."

But there are specific things that can be said about the biblical god...that he created the earth in 6 days, for example.  And so if you believe in the biblical god, you believe god did this, correct?


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDeviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: a (maybe) new definition of God [Re: clam_dude]
    #18846387 - 09/15/13 09:11 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

No, that is not correct. There are two creation stories in the Bible.

The first one is the one in which God is said to have created the world in seven days.

•Day 1: heavens, earth, light, day and night.
•Day 2: the "dome" (sky) that separates the waters below (on earth) from the waters above the sky.
•Day 3: dry land and vegetation.
•Day 4: stars, moon, sun.
•Day 5: water creatures and birds.
•Day 6: land animals; humankind (both male and female). The number of human beings created is not specified. Also, God here gives to people "every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food" (Gen 1:29) -- no prohibitions.
•Day 7: God rested, and blessed this day.


In the second creation story, things are a little different. First of all, individual days are not specified. And the sequence is very different:

•earth and heavens; no rain yet but a spring would well up and water the ground
•from dust, man was created (not woman yet)
•garden of Eden -- man is put here; garden includes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
•God tells man to till and keep the garden of Eden, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (note that Woman has not entered the scene yet! Man is alone).
•God notices that Man is alone and wants to find him a helper and partner, so He first creates animals and birds and Man names them. But still there was no helper as partner.
•God makes Man fall asleep, pulls out a rib, and makes Woman.
•The story of original sin then ensues.


So why would you assume that I believed in the first story and not the second? Also, because the two creation accounts directly contradict each other, then clearly the Bible cannot be literally true or infallible.

I was not around when God created the world, so how would I know how many days it took? The important thing to take from the stories in the Bible is not the specific details like how long it took God to do something, but rather what the stories reveal to us about God's nature and his plan for salvation. You see, the people back then did not live in a rational, scientific age as we do todayt, they lived in a mythic age. So naturally the wisdom they acquired is cloaked in the form of myth, story and legend.

You want to pin down my definition of God. Unfortunately God is not really something which you can pin down. If you think about it, definitions define something in terms of other things. The problem with God is that you can't really define God in terms of other things, because there are no other things. All that you experience are just God's processes.  All I can do is point you in the direction of God, hoping that you will taken it upon yourself to look where I am pointing instead of just looking at my finger.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Simply placing your attention in the unmanifest = enlightenment? Deviate 705 9 02/28/14 02:24 PM
by Sse
* Psychological and metaphysical aspects of Music
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Blastrid 31,962 107 12/08/16 01:45 AM
by Fractaliopsybe
* Dream Thread
( 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 all )
ShroomismM 49,349 246 11/08/07 05:30 PM
by gbeatle
* What religion are you?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
undecided 23,233 122 12/25/22 07:38 PM
by LogicaL Chaos
* Untainted happiness being our nature
( 1 2 3 all )
circastes 3,718 57 08/13/14 04:08 AM
by crkhd
* Why does God exist?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
LogicaL ChaosM 7,800 148 04/17/18 02:34 AM
by BrendanFlock
* Well, it's finally happening to me now, spiritual awakening
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Deviate 5,476 73 12/31/13 12:34 PM
by Sse
* The world is not ideal
( 1 2 3 all )
White Beard 2,571 59 08/11/14 04:53 PM
by Spacerific

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
830 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.