What do you mean by "God," anyway?
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"I did not assert anything, I stated a fact. There is no evidence."
Well, at least that's an improvement from the previous "I can't say there is much evidence any gods exist." This at least gives us something to work with. You believe in this fact. You are no longer hemming and hawing about "can't say" and "much evidence". You've finally taken a for real stand on the matter. Good work.
But the question remains, "What do you mean by 'God', anyway?" When you attack others over this word "God", what is it that you are attacking?
"If you asserting that god(s) do exist then I would wonder just what evidence you think you've got? If it were really convincing you wild be trying to prove it to people. You claim that you don't care about convincing anyone (but yourself) that god exists or doesn't exist, and I will bet it's because you are aware of how weak or ridiculous your position would appear to sane people. That suggests to me that it barely convinces you. So just how can you be surely aren't totally fooling yourself?"
You haven't actually read my reply to the OP, have you? None of what you are assuming here makes any sense whatsoever. Go read my reply back on page 1 of this thread and, if you still feel the need to attack whatever it is that you assume me to be, try again with a little more focus and specificity. I can assure you, nothing in this sentence (even the correctly spelled parts) applies.
Also, this constant appeal to the authority of "sane people" is really starting to beg the question...
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"There is no evidence. If you asserting that god(s) do exist then I would wonder just what evidence you think you've got? If it were really convincing you wild be trying to prove it to people. You claim that you don't care about convincing anyone (but yourself) that god exists or doesn't exist, and I will bet it's because you are aware of how weak or ridiculous your position would appear to sane people. That suggests to me that it barely convinces you. So just how can you be surely aren't totally fooling yourself?"
Nobody proves God to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you're willing to undertake the necessary training and practices to make it so. Scientific illuminism, in a nutshell.
(As a rule, people understand this about the physical sciences â one wouldn't expect a shoe maker to comprehend stellar dynamics, nor expect a physicist to explain quantum theory without the necessary use of specialized language â but when it comes to metaphysics people expect all the answers to everything right now in terms they understand. Blame the exoteric religions, perhaps, for discouraging independent consideration of the Divine.)
You want proof that there are seeds within an orange, but unless you're willing to peel the thing and dig through the pulp you're just going to see an orange ball, and apparently in your case rail against those who have gotten their fingers sticky.
You seem to be an astonishingly angry man. I'm sorry.
-
@zeph said
"Nobody proves God to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you're willing to undertake the necessary training and practices to make it so. Scientific illuminism, in a nutshell."
You can sure convince yourself, but this is not proof of anything. Plenty of people the world over have already convinced themselves a god exists, without scientific illuminism.
"one wouldn't expect a shoe maker to comprehend stellar dynamics"
Just like I don't expect a lawyer to be able to comprehend physics. Nor to be able to expound upon that particular topic to lay people.
"without the necessary use of specialized language â"
I find it to be convoluted language. If it's just a matter of words, then we can easily understand that what people in the past once understood as god, is not actually a magical and capricious being who lives in the sky somewhere. If we are not actually referring to a deity then I don't really see a need to keep using the word as people once did, to refer to things we are as yet ignorant of (like what happened before the big bang, what is consciousness, etc.), or in the way that pantheists use it (i.e. everything is god).
" but when it comes to metaphysics people expect all the answers to everything right now in terms they understand. Blame the exoteric religions, perhaps, for discouraging independent consideration of the Divine.)"
Metaphysics has had thousands of years to bear fruit. Religions don't build rockets, and computers. Medical science has it beat when it comes to health care.
Some exoteric religions do promote a consideration of the divine. Buddhism for example. But I'm not sure what that had to do with the conversation.
"You want proof that there are seeds within an orange, but unless you're willing to peel the thing and dig through the pulp you're just going to see an orange ball, and apparently in your case rail against those who have gotten their fingers sticky."
Do you really think that skeptical people, and people with an atheistic leaning, don't ever expose themselves to a variety of strange experiences? You would be exceedingly narrow minded to assume that atheists don't do yoga, or meditate. Just because somebody doesn't share the same conclusion that you do about an experience, does not mean that it does not work for them, or that they have never had a strange experience.
The difference between us is that we draw different conclusions. At one time I might have drawn other conclusions, but eventually I started to wonder if maybe it was even possible to see a ghost, or to cast a spell. Not according to the latest findings in physical sciences, no.
"You seem to be an astonishingly angry man. I'm sorry."
You seem to think you can judge the character of a person based on a few paragraphs typed in haste. Or is this an attempt at remote viewing?
-
You appear to be trying to convince or convert somebody to your opinion. The original invitation in tis thread was for people to share that they mean by the word - with a goal of getting a diversity of language and point of view - not for anybody to convince anybody else of anything on the matter.
If I understand you correctly (paraphrasing), what "God" means to you is bullshit, hoax, error, etc. Is this correct? If so, thanks for sharing.
-
It doesn't really have any special meaning to me. And TBH it never really has, not even when I was exploring the idea of magic and spirituality, or psi or whatever you want to call it.
Whenever used in a conversation, I just assume that the other person means some variation of any one of the dictionary definitions.
-
Thanks.
-
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I can't tell someone what to believe. There is just no hard physical or scientific evidence. That is not so much my opinion, as it is the way things are.
I am not trying to be combative by stating the plain truth either. The evidence that you would say you have, is not subject to empirical testing. You would say that all I need to do to prove it to myself, is to have a similar experience. I am not asking how I can have my own similar experience. I have already had plenty of my own. What I am saying, is that there is no objective evidence that any of our mystical experiences amounts to any more than fantasy. There is nothing wrong with indulging in fantasy from time to time.
If you do not agree, then that is perfectly fine. I would just like to know if you have any objective evidence, or any real reason why anybody would believe you when you say that you have had a real spiritual experience, other than to take you at your word when you say that you have experienced it?
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"It doesn't really have any special meaning to me. And TBH it never really has, not even when I was exploring the idea of magic and spirituality, or psi or whatever you want to call it."
I would assert that it actually does have some meaning for you. It has so much meaning for you that you, of your own free will and accord, take time out of your day to come onto this forum and consistently present your case against the existence of what you've built up in your mind as "God".
The existence of God is such a concern for you that you've come onto an online forum and asked people what they mean when they say "God". Out of the trillions of other actions you could be taking and things you could be doing and conversations you could be having and activities you could be engaged in...here you are, on the internet, trying to convince other people that they're wrong and you're right.
If God didn't have any special meaning for you, you would be taking a completely different set of actions in the world. It literally would not occur to you to come on here and engage in some of the conversations you've been engaged in. Life would literally occur for you as Godless. A conversation about the existence of God or the meaning of God wouldn't even show up on your radar. You wouldn't even utter or type the word let along ask other human beings for evidence. EDITED
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"If you do not agree, then that is perfectly fine. I would just like to know if you have any objective evidence, or any real reason why anybody would believe you when you say that you have had a real spiritual experience, other than to take you at your word when you say that you have experienced it?"
Off-topic to this thread. (I'm the original poster. It was created to open up a sharing on the topic.) As Admin, I've now removed the OT posts so we can get back to business.
-
@Al-Shariyf said
"I would assert that it actually does have some meaning for you. It has so much meaning for you that you, of your own free will and accord, take time out of your day to come onto this forum and consistently present your case against the existence of what you've built up in your mind as "God". "
I'm not presenting any case. And I am not about to. If you want to believe in what you believe in, then you will probably believe it without actively seeking out information that will eventually invalidate those beliefs. Instead you would probably engage in activities which reinforce those beliefs, and avoid things and conversations that challenge them. That is ok if it works for you, but do not erroneously attribute the same sort of zealousness to a person who does not believe in anything in particular.
[Fair response allowed. The OT rant following is deleted. After giving much leeway, one more OT post and account will be deleted without further warning. - Admin]
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@dr. ski wampas said
"If you do not agree, then that is perfectly fine. I would just like to know if you have any objective evidence, or any real reason why anybody would believe you when you say that you have had a real spiritual experience, other than to take you at your word when you say that you have experienced it?"Off-topic to this thread."
Does that mean I can start a thread just for discussing the question, and it won't be deleted?
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@dr. ski wampas said
"If you do not agree, then that is perfectly fine. I would just like to know if you have any objective evidence, or any real reason why anybody would believe you when you say that you have had a real spiritual experience, other than to take you at your word when you say that you have experienced it?"Off-topic to this thread."
Does that mean I can start a thread just for discussing the question, and it won't be deleted?"
Yes, as long as it is not in violation of forum policy such as the one explicitly prohibiting opposition to or dismissiveness of spiritual, magical, or mystical things. Such a post would be de facto off topic to the entire forum.
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"If you want to believe in what you believe in, then you will probably believe it without actively seeking out information that will eventually invalidate those beliefs. Instead you would probably engage in activities which reinforce those beliefs, and avoid things and conversations that challenge them."
I healthily and wholeheartedly welcome conversations that would challenge my beliefs and willfully examine them. Conversations like this provide me with ample opportunity to distinguish un-examined beliefs, assumptions and interpretations I've either inherited from others or created myself in the moment of unconsciously reacting to something. I want to be proven wrong and willfully relinquish my attachment to any belief, assumption or interpretation I hold that proves, through action and first hand experience, to be inaccurate.
@dr. ski wampas said
"That is ok if it works for you, but do not erroneously attribute the same sort of zealousness to a person who does not believe in anything in particular."
See this is where things get dicey, for you, because you DO believe in something particular and you are fooling yourself if you think you don't. I don't know exactly what it is that you believe and I'm not so foolish to expect you to openly disclose it and put it up on the mat. I do not say any of this based on an assumption. I say this based on this: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13814">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13814</a><!-- l --> and this <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13847">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13847</a><!-- l -->. It doesn't take much to discern your general point of view that is shaping, influencing and constraining your view of reality.
-
Hey Doc,
Just for s#!ts and giggles, I'm going to attempt to show you where your decision to attack what you perceive to be the underlying assumptions of this thread is getting in the way of your actual understanding of the thread. I don't really expect this to be successful but... hell... anything's worth a shot, right?
A few posts back, you said:
@dr. ski wampas said
"I'm not trying to convince anyone. I can't tell someone what to believe. There is just no hard physical or scientific evidence. That is not so much my opinion, as it is the way things are.
"
Now, the fragment that is your third sentence assumes an antecedent of "God", as in, "There is just no hard physical or scientific evidence [of God]." The problem is, by not engaging in the actual topic of the thread, this sentence is fundamentally false. By assuming some generalized "dictionary definition", you are allowing for all of them. That means the definition of the pantheist is just as applicable as that of the monotheist, or the atheist, or the late-night comedian, or whichever one chooses. If we go with that of the pantheist in this instance, then there is plenty of physical and scientific evidence that God exists. In fact, there's nothing but. That's not so much my opinion, as it is the way things are.By dismissing any use of the word that doesn't fit into your barely-defined parameter of "supernatural hoax", or however you want to word it, and not acknowledging that the person with whom you are speaking might understand the term differently, you are the one with underlying, and very likely unexamined, assumptions that are controlling your thought processes. It is at least partially the goal of the early stages of the A.'.A.'. (and, by extension, Temple of Thelema) to bring the aspirant face to face with these underlying assumptions that are ruling his/her life. That process is what these boards are in service of. That is why your statement,
"If you want to believe in what you believe in, then you will probably believe it without actively seeking out information that will eventually invalidate those beliefs. Instead you would probably engage in activities which reinforce those beliefs, and avoid things and conversations that challenge them."
seems so out of place here. This assumption of yours runs contrary to the work of the A.'.A.'.. If you are here voluntarily, that is the work you are telling the rest of us that you are interested in undertaking. Are you?So, once again, and in all earnestness: What do you mean by "God" anyway?
-
You know, we've been given a variable to use: HGA. Under this label, we investigate the phenomena of what everyone has always called "God."
It's set up not to require a belief in God. But it's also set up to demonstrate that the classic phenomena do exist and that they do manifest in the experience of an intelligence greater than one's own - a an initiator into and a revealer of mysteries.
I'm not here to debate whether or not that experience really exists. I'm here to further participate in it and understand it.
So, I've already said what I mean by the word "God." But taking the above perspective, given that people experience this, I tend to let people use the word and use it however they like. Bottom line, I know the phenomena they are attempting to describe.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I prefer a mythic approach. Humanity loves stories: we live by stories, often being satisfied to live life as a soap opera or a Great Tragedy rather than have no story at all. Frankly, all that most people need in order to transform their lives is to write or find a better story to live. ..."
Such wise words Jim! thank you for this and this great question. I find myself in harmony with much of what you write here. The only exception I have is just the actual word and sound of G-O-D, separate from whatever meaning it would have. It just sounds a little too guttural of a word, more like a grunt or primitive sound to express something so elegant and infinite.
Which is what I love about liber AL and it's triune concept. G-O-D is just the vast and infinite collection of all sentient points (Nuit/Hadit) manifesting in 'us' right now (RHK).
Personally, for me the word that expresses this full 'completeness' is Allah, and specifically and thankfully and directly due to the beautiful revelation from Liber 31 - the inhalation AL and the exhalation LA - is so simple, poetic and universal.
But lately, I am also enjoying some of the 'futuristic' concepts emerging that play with the 'God' concept. One of my favorite Kurzweil quotes "People ask me if God exists and I always say 'no, not yet'". Especially with movies like Interstellar entering the mainstream, and this concept of 'Us in the future' from a sci fi perspective also being, in a sense, God is also quite harmonious in many ways I believe and we may just need a new word after all
-
oldfriend56, I like you choosing Allah. I use God, god, gods when I please, but at heart I prefer El.
-
I have never liked the word "God" because of its muddled etymological origins. However, based on its conventional associations in natural language, my working definition of "God" is currently: The experience of the universe. Though, in the logical metalanguage of Thelema my working definition is currently: The experience of Nuit, i.e. Heru-Ra-Ha.
-
My view has varying levels, from the simplistic pantheon idea to that incomprehensible level of existence that I cannot fathom. To put it simply: for every action there is a reaction, only every action is a reaction. God is that which was the first action. At the same time, everything is God. God is, therefore, the sum.
-
A further way of describing what i mean by "God" is concentration, meditation and extasis. The three gods(Nuit, Hadit, RHK) correspond to those three practices, wich correspond to actual forces(yin, yang, tao)that even manifest physicaly(electromagnetic force).
Now more and more i rise up the standard of that wich makes me think"that's God"(though all is god too...). There is the perception, then the intensity of it, then its alignement within the universe, then its actual direct effects upon the universe. If, to some significant extent(that varies, thats the idea of progress lol) all this are balanced, then i can say, whatever the God among the three basic ones(and a few others) is concerned, that the experience is genuine.
It is a fascinating path, the gradual unveiling. I think when at the same time knowledge increases, humility increases, and one is fine with whatever happens as far as one practices as willed by the great all, then it is a good sign. The great danger in the path towards God is the adversary, the black powers.
The black powers can be tempting except if one stabilises the image of HGA and practices seriously equilibration with that in mind(maintaining image, always remembering),These two, if were always remembered would avoid many mistakes and "unnecessary" wanderings in black magick and suffering. Though even such mistake is perfect ! How could it be more perfect than what actually IS...?!
There is also a possibility of falling/failing, and it would be not perfect if this was not so.