What is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

This question has come up late in another thread, but I want to give it proper exposure:


What is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well...

If it was changing, you would be changing.

Check with yourself, if you like. That's where all the answers to such questions are found.

What of you can you notice which is changing continually? And what is stable and hasn't changed since your beginning and won't for your entire life?

See, we can't just be popping in and out... like so many thoughts in our mind.
We are built with the stability, and on the foundation, of a constant rhythm.

Would you want that to change?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

100% necessity!
Every unique (-ly perceived) moment of existence is as it is! There can be no 'otherwise'! What is, is! There are no alternatives!

All moments of existence, ever, are synchronously manifesting to Consciousness. All at once! We cannot 'change' anything from what it is to something else! We cannot 'change' anything, period!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

The notion of 'time', and 'linear time', exist in/as 'thoughts'. Certain Perspectives perceive thoughts of past/present/future. Without 'thought/ego' there can only be Now! and Now! and Now!!

The actuality of the Universe/Reality is that it is 'timeless', existing for a single Planck moment (almost), 20^-43/sec; one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second, with no 'temporal' features!
(All 'temporality' (linear or otherwise) is 'thought/ego'.)

So, every moment of existence is as it is, Now! is all that one can ever experience, all that is!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

Many times I 'know/perceive' the 'future' (other moments), because it is Now! It cannot be 'changed' because what you perceive, is that which is! All moments are Now!
Such is the nature of Reality.
Synchronous!

"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics

Existence = the complete Universe = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao ...
All INCLUSIVE!!
Everything exists! All inclusive!
Everything is Real! All inclusive!
Existence/Reality is all inclusive!
That which is perceived exists. All inclusive!
That which exists is perceived. All inclusive!
Not a thing exists (notice that I didn't say that 'nothing' exists, 'cause it don't! *__- ) that is not perceived. All inclusive!
Not a thing is perceived that does not exist. All inclusive!
There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary!

Another point.
To completely define something, the context in which it is perceived must be included in the description.
Ultimately, the COMPLETE context of anything is the entire Universe! (at any moment!) So, to actually 'change' something from what is, to what you find more comfortable (the usual basis of 'desires' and the 'thoughts' of 'will' and 'free-will/choice'), you would have to alter the entire Universe (think Butterfly Effect), What an egoic/godlike ability! And just for your own comfort! You might have to ignorantly wipe out 17 galaxies and 486 civilisations so you can 'create' that new chair...
Get the drift?
Thank GOD! that it is impossible for us to 'change' anything!!!
(Any more than a telescope can have 'creative powers' over what it is pointed at!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and so...

in addition...

Our concious awareness and practiced effort to gently focus on that constant rhythm within, helps to keep us aware...

This awareness is about feeling/experiencing our reality, not thinking about it.
There is a huge difference between thought and feeling.

 

One cannot improve upon a perfect state, (god) and hence we cannot say that anything was created for the purpose of improvement, (everything is already perfect).

Neither can we say that anything was created for the purpose of detriment because that negates the claim to perfection.

Being perfect, it can be said that such entity has no needs or desires. As explained on the other thread, desires reflect needs, (mental/physical/spiritual fulfillment).

Being perfect, such entity would already be maximally fulfilled. As a result, the existence of anything other than this entity negates the existence of such entity.

Regards,

 

Unless, of course, that "anything other than this entity" is actually part of that entity.

 

Certainly but then 'we' (which are part of that entity), are either perfect and indeed can refer to ourselves as god and any argument to us having been created, (creationism/ID/standard christian theology), is made redundant. Likewise the entire bible becomes redundant - Jesus is no different and no better [ad nauseum].

While I'm happy to go with that, it's amazing how few christians are, especially when I point out that the pile of dog poop they've just trod in is in fact god.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are we using Aristotle's definition of "nothing to add or subtract", or Empedocles' "potential for development and complement"? (wiki).

Even a state that has nothing to add or subtract might not be static, just in equilibrium. Like being content or not desiring food. Even though the need is met, to remain in this state you still have to eat. The 'perfect' state continues from a position of fulfilment, not from need - it's self-sufficient.

And yet that would still be less perfect than something that doesn't need that kind of perfection, and can even give it up without losing anything.

So even a state where all desires are met might still be improved on. There is no 'unmet desire' in death, yet few regard it as a perfect state of being. Even Leibniz who said we live in the best of all possible worlds didn't believe it was perfect.

But if we use another measure for perfection like, say, 'selfless love', then the paradox disappears. Perfect love loves perfectly - not out of need or desire or selfish conceit, but from a state of fulfilment. Then we are only 'incomplete/imperfect/unfulfilled' if we do not love like that.

 

so if the state remains constant, you have no quibbles ?

Like for instance suppose we settle on ice cream being the perfect food, if one goes from strawberry to vanilla, does that constitute a change?

Or do you thing we must adhere to a radical definition that prohibits even the slightest nuanced change of detail?

 

Who gets to decide what is a "detail" and what is more than that?

 

This is under discusison.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh. You mean like that god who so perfectly loves the majority of his children that he will torture them in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption because they didn't choose the right religious tradition in the 70 years or so they had on earth?

 

If one "goes from strawberry to vanilla", your original question becomes redundant. You can't say it "remains constant". Kindly start again, making sure to not fall into such error.

Uhh.. you do because you're an entity with physical needs. I am unsure where this applies.

 

I am just trying to work out how radical you insist consistency be. Inasmuch as the category of ice cream is concerned, I would have thought that regardless whether it is strawberry or vanilla it would still be constant. If you disagree, please explain how strawberry ice cream is more/ brings more to the category of "ice cream" than vanilla (or vice versa).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The word "radical" has no place here. Explain the reason for a 'change in states' without reducing it to a need.

Before I do so, I would kindly ask that you provide a detailed explanation as to what precisely you are using ice cream as an analogy to. What exactly are you trying to posit?

 

If you are drawing up quibbles over different flavours, it certainly does.

At the moment we are simply talking about the category of "ice cream", and why you think a person who shifts between flavours is inconsistent in their claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

 

Apologies, I am unsure how that is "explain[ing] the reason for a 'change in states' without reducing it to a need". I would be grateful if you could try again. Many thanks.

Ok. Could you kindly explain to me - as I have already asked - why we are talking about ice cream. For what reason are you talking about ice cream? What is it an analogy to exactly?

What is the connection to? What shifting is being done by who and what is ice cream?

Kindly explain to me, (I'm going to ask once again), what this ice cream is an analogy to and how it relates to my statements concerning perfect entities being needless, (which applies equally to perfect ice cream - perfect ice cream has no needs although the person choosing different ice creams certainly might).

Just incase you didn't spot it, there is your error.

1. You refer to ice cream as 'perfect'
2. You then use a person with needs selecting between one perfect ice cream and another perfect ice cream.

How on earth is this even relevant to the subject? It's not, it's a strawman.

 

quite simply, do you think changing the topic from strawberry ice cream to vanilla ice cream warrants a marked change from the discussion of ice cream?

between the qualities that designate a category of course.
Unless you go to an ice cream shop to buy brake fluid, I am sure you are more than capable of understanding this (brake fluid not being a particularly favored ice cream flavor)

category of course.
The reason we are talking about ice cream and not god at the moment is that ice cream is probably easier for you to understand.

the hypothetical person making the claim "ice cream is the perfect food" of course

ask a five year old and they will enlighten you

It all began with your problems surrounding the word "radical". I am trying to help you understand how even designating something as perfect still enables a bit of nuanced variety, as long as it doesn't move outside the designated category (like for instance, brake fluid flavoured ice cream). On top of this, I am also trying to help you understand how radical terms are necessarily absurd. Given that you are yet to explain how vanilla ice cream is radially different from strawberry ice cream, I think you understand this and are merely feeding rope (with q's like "what is ice cream ?" ... I mean, seriously ....) into what you can see as a defeated argument

feel free to elaborate on how shifting from vanilla to strawberry violates the category of ice cream.

you are basically arguing that any degree of change violates the designated category (whether it be god, ice cream or whatever). IOW you are insisting on using a radical definition of change that excludes any possibility of variety. I discuss the variety within ice cream since I imagine this is an easier topic for you to understand (or at the very least, a 5 year old can succinctly answer your questions regarding "what is ice cream?")

 

I am unsure what this is supposed to be an explanation to. Nobody, (but you), is talking about a person with needs picking between one ice cream or the next ice cream.

One last time lightgigantic: "explain the reason for a 'change in states' without reducing it to a need".

What? If I go to an ice cream shop, (to buy ice cream or brake fluid), it is due to me being a being with needs. What has this got to do with anything?

One last time lightgigantic: "Could you kindly explain to me - as I have already asked - why we are talking about ice cream. For what reason are you talking about ice cream? What is it an analogy to exactly?"

What hypothetical person? I never mentioned people in my argument.

To some "hypothetical person" who has needs. What has that got to do with the needless entity, (the ice cream)?

What?! The "ice cream" in this scenario is 'god'. I never said god was radically different from god, where did you get this from?

 

The reasoning goes that
1. change - any change - takes place only due to desire or need,
2. desire and need are signs of lack, and lack is a mark of imperfection.

You are making this about categories, but SL's (and the common Western reasoning) involves no such concern over categories.

 

What is your point?

That some people have worked out their relationship with God to a degree that "mishaps" (such as atheism) do not happen anymore?

If that is so, then we first need to understand how such a relationship is even possible, if God is to be considered perfect.

An aspirant may pray "God, please grant me service unto You", but such a prayer implies that the aspirant is more or less convinced that God is an entity with senses, feelings, that God can be affected by one's pleas.
If He is perfect, why then would He be affected by anything?

Affectation is a sign of change; and change is a sign of lack, as per reasoning in the above post.