Defining what is God.

why would it be mystic?

otherwise, in regards to ....

..... parampara (disciplic succession) deals with 1, a third of 2 (the other two being scripture and saintly persons) and nothing much with 3

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I had meant through going through the teachings and practices in order to attain to that state where one's "vision of God", as it were, becomes clear.

That is to say, all things are clouded until the mirror is washed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that's the general procedure, yes

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And following that, one can be assured of the prior process one followed? Regarding the authority of the Vedas, teachers, and holy men?

 

Do you feel the need to discuss point three, 3. have good evidence for believing it (Wilson, 1960:76) as previously referenced?

 

That is really what I am asking now, is it not?

Is that where you get the "good evidence for believing it"? From that experience later?

 

yes, just like a hungry person gets good evidence of the value of eating with each bite (he doesn't need a second opinion)

SB 11.2.42: Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things — these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

 

So just as we cannot tell if the apple will be sweet or sour, you affirm that we cannot know whether knowledge of God is true until we have perceived God? That we, in essence, take a bite?

 

Does that apply to cocaine? :bugeye: I would know if I sink into it...unless I try it...right?

 

Technically, you wouldn't.

 

so what if God was the same thing?...once there...cant get out?:bugeye:

 

Allow me to caution you from stressing such a point, if there's nothing objective to tie it to.

...

PJ, Have you considered the fundamental problem of beliefs? That of "infinite regression"...

 

Sure... If I can find it....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Created / Caused - in this matter they are the same - both are the creation of the end result - i.e. the various individual parts in the specific order / place etc.

Ah - the wonder of semantics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unfortunately I think this is you not fully understanding the concept of Infinity.

It is a concept - not a number - of that I'm sure you're happy with.
So to speak of "Infinity +/- 1" is invalid / incorrect / insensible(?).

To remove one from an infinite number would still leave an infinite number.
To remove every-other-one from an infinite pile would result in two infinite piles.
There is no limit to infinity - so to remove one CAN NOT diminish the whole - as to do so puts a limit on the whole.

It is not to say that each constituent part does not have value - but removing one does not diminish the whole.


I think the thread has moved on since this, though.

 

Yes it has. 33 pages and yet Lg has not come up with a definition of what a god is, one that every individual would agree on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No surprise there, since any definition would either make one exception for the "god of monotheism"-- or demolish it.

 

ah but we would'nt because an atheist would not accept the information from this so called saintly(worthy of adoration?)person, unless he had some evidence to show he was worthy, which he does'nt, but a physicist does.

 

Because as soon as you give a god any form, you subject it to reason, and the gods never stand up to reason.

That is why theists are unwilling to say anything about their god, it opens them to ridicule, and their god to disproof. Which leaves them worshiping a thing about which they can say nothing. It could be an evil thing hellbent on torture and destruction, and they worship it anyway.

A huge problem with any concept of a deity is that nothing can have infinite negative states. Nothing can have been eternal heading back into the past. At some point there must have been complete stasis. This does not allow any room for any of the known conceptualizations of any gods. They simply can't exist without having a finite past.

So it really doesn't matter what definition is given for a god in this thread, since they won't include this feature, the rest is moot.

 

The real question is would you accept something to be true which appears to your mind as self-evidently true?

Yes, you would. You do it all the time.

 

and what prey tell is accepted as self evident, I'll tell you, everything we know we gained from either education or real experiences. it only requires no proof or explanation, because it has been learnt or experienced in the real world, it would'nt, or should I say should'nt for the religious here, be accepted as self-evident, if it is purely subjective.
self-evident things are wholly objective.

 

given the number of atheists posting, you wouldn't expect otherwise

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!