View Full Version : Is god absolute?
If god is Absolute than vodka is god.... basic equivalency ... if a=b and b=c then a=c.
Define your terms.
Are you for real?
Are you for real?
Absolutely.
I'm not interested in trying to be clever.
No one has to respond to the OP if they so choose.
Anyone can put define: absolute into google and get an adequate meaning.
It is an important and profound question; one about which it appears many Christians are confused.
I'm not interested in trying to be clever.
And yet, when asked to simply define the terms you are using in your question, so that useful conversation may proceed, you throw up a smoke screen and a personal attack.
So, that says something.
I could be wrong, but a new member (today) who already has started 3 threads, and whose sig line contains a link is a bit suspicious.
Yes, relatively speaking.
Oh, and welcome nithig, almost forgot my manners.
And yet, when asked to simply define the terms you are using in your question, so that useful conversation may proceed, you throw up a smoke screen and a personal attack.
So, that says something. This is pure projection. There is no smoke screen and no personal attack except in yr own mind.
a new member (today) who already has started 3 threads, and whose sig line contains a link is a bit suspicious. Perhaps you might point out to me where it indicates how new members must behave in this forum.
At the orchard when those who had worked all day saw the recent comers being paid the same, the former complained.
What answer was given them?
Perhaps you might delve a little deeper Gina and find the motivation for your suspicion (and then share it).
I could hang about the pool all day wondering how warm or cold the water is ... this character would prefer
to just dive in and see what happens. Is that a problem?
Btw the OP poses a valid question ... why divert from it?
Is god absolute?
Thank you for the welcome Xmac!
Oh, the answer is no but there's lots of quibble room. I prefer to direct that energy to my colored pencils and the Discordian Coloring Book.
OK, I'll take the question seriously as it's something that interests me.
bae does have a point though: defining your terms is useful. However, I find that in trying to define the terms in your question I end up with self-referential definitions (sorry bae). But even those self-referential definitions have helped sharpen my thinking around what I actually believe, even if inadequate as a starting point for debate.
To me, god can be thought of as an order of infinity (see "set theory" here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity)). Perhaps "the" infinity. If it were not so, god would not be god. I am not sure if god needs to be truly infinite, or merely a lower order of infinity. I tend think of god as a supreme otherness that is neither a being nor a non-being. A concept that cannot be defined by our very limited language (hence, not "this" or "that") and cannot be understood by our very limited consciousness. I believe this because if indeed there is such an otherness, I believe it must be infinite (there's that circularity in my definition). And we cannot, with our very finite brains, consciousness and language, possibly hope to understand infinity, except as a very simplified model.
I grew up in a family that believed in a "personal god". I just can't go there - why would god (defined as above) have any interest in me? Especially as I am not at all convinced that god is a "person" as we would ever understand that term.
Karen Armstrong's book "The Case for God" was a valuable read for me in shaping some of these ideas, particularly some of the earlier chapters covering early Christianity which demonstrated how very "eastern" early Christian thought was around god.
Hello SoSimple,
may I point out that it was stated earlier in the thread that any reader can put "define: absolute" into google. It comes up with definitions including:
"perfect or complete or pure/complete and without restriction or qualification/an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence."
So it would be fine to reframe the Q as, "is god perfect, complete & without restriction or qualification?"
I tend think of god as a supreme otherness that is neither a being nor a non-being.This gets to the heart of the matter ... so let's come back to it when there's more responses & a bit more unravelling of this 'absoluteness'.
A concept that cannot be defined by our very limited language (hence, not "this" or "that") and cannot be understood by our very limited consciousness. Total sympathy with this - you hit the nail on the head. We can never put into words that which is beyond words, the numinous, the divine, pure energy/spirit. It's a dilemma for everyone who has started on spiritual inquiry.
Yet even when we know and understand this limitation we continue ... why? well as a group we need some means of exchange & for humans that's language. It can be a topic of huge frustration :-) (And that's why Christ used parables and Buddha used the negative - eg when asked 'what is enlightenment, he answered, 'the end of suffering").
I am not at all convinced that god is a "person"Even at a rational level, how could energy/spirit be a person? It's a nonsense isn't it. It's energy & that's why it is every-where, all knowing, all powerful.
In yr post the word 'believe' is used a few time. I understand ... for most of my life I used that word without really ever questioning it.
Then one day it hit me like a mac truck - believe means I don't know. That allowed a significant change for me & once I started questioning such concepts (also 'faith') then my quest truly began. The buddhists talk about 'truth' being non conceptual. That is, it cannot be an idea ... because the human mind is finite - it lives and dies with the body - but 'truth' is infinte. So to try to understand with the mind in like putting the Pacific Ocean into a beach bucket! Ultimatley IT arise in silence and stillness.
Thanks for joining the thread.
Cocchiarella's semantics for second-order modal logic allow us to construct the following argument, as per Gödel:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/b/1/eb1eceac51e04fae793efefc8755dba6.png
QED
Anselm's version is quite similar, but it is in Latin, perhaps less clear.
As I see it, as long as there is a "relative", god is not absolute. It is both relative and absolute; transcendent and non-dualistic. But of course using the word God or god is an abbreviation for what we think someone else means. And for me all words are abbreviations and all numbers are variables unless I want to have a good sleep.;)
using the word God... is indeed problematic.
For me this term is over-used, under-experienced and has been/remains the source of much conflict.
As I see it, as long as there is a "relative",
Can a 'relative' exist beyond polarised language?
all words are abbreviations
he he .... yes how easily we forget that language does not exist in nature (signalling does)
and that it is a man - made form of representation. i can call 'heat' all day long but if it's a cold
day that calling won't warm me one little bit.
Cocchiarella's semantics for second-order modal logic allow us to construct the following argument, as per Gödel:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/b/1/eb1eceac51e04fae793efefc8755dba6.png
QED
Anselm's version is quite similar, but it is in Latin, perhaps less clear.
Or, it's turtle's all the way down.
is indeed problematic.
For me this term is over-used, under-experienced and has been/remains the source of much conflict.
Can a 'relative' exist beyond polarised language?
he he .... yes how easily we forget that language does not exist in nature (signalling does)
and that it is a man - made form of representation. i can call 'heat' all day long but if it's a cold
day that calling won't warm me one little bit.
No, but believing it will.
No, but believing it will.
Saw Bear Grills in the Arctic ... shame he didn't know that.;)
I have seen it written that the attempt to define God is the attempt to replace God. Humans can know only what they can learn from sensory perception which is finite, God if expressed as infinite exceeds finite sensory perceptions. Therefore all religion defaults to idolatry. Ego is beast, ego is evil.
And yet, when asked to simply define the terms you are using in your question, so that useful conversation may proceed, you throw up a smoke screen and a personal attack.
So, that says something.
This says something:
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)
Altruism Ethics from Wiki:
Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."
The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste [1], that:
[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
endquote.
The demands of altruists never end while they whine about smokescreens.
Humans can know only what they can learn from sensory perception which is finite....
Discuss the issue of synthetic a priori truths :-)
I have seen it written that the attempt to define God is the attempt to replace God. Humans can know only what they can learn from sensory perception which is finite, God if expressed as infinite exceeds finite sensory perceptions. Therefore all religion defaults to idolatry. Ego is beast, ego is evil.
It is fair comment rraupers that words cannot define the infinite. So we are, in a sense, stuck. Do we speak (write) or remain silent. Well the world is full of exclamations isnt it ...the bird calls, the cat's meow, the dolphin's squeal ... so why not make noise with words as long as they are respectful and at least pointers to something greater.
Ultimately it is true that we cannot say what god is we can only say what god is not.
I really dont understand why ego is beast or evil. Ego is the product of the mind, a story the mind builds and continues to tell (the story of 'me') ... so I don't see it as evil ...it just is. What is most helpful is when I see through the ego and come to see directly that is is no-thing in itself, just a projection of the mind.
Humans do learn from sensory imput that is true. Also it is true that those who wake up learn from direct perception - no concepts involved, just straight seeing. (yes I know 'seeing' implies the sense of sight but I trust you get what I'm aiming at.)
Yr posts have slightly taken this thread off course so I would like to turn it back to the opening post:
Is god absolute?
If the answer is yes, then it is saying that god is something.
It also implies that it is not me.
If the answer is no, then it is saying that god is not something
It also implies, oddly enough, that it is me.
God and no god, absolute and non-absolute (or relative) are the same "thing": a linguistic paradox, which for my money, is the best description I know because it is the only thing which prompts "no mind". When we "pay that (or them) no mind" or "never mind" we disengage or disregard and don't bother judging, leaving or allowing mind to go blank. We're then left with direct experience, the (w)holy moment.
When I say they are the same thing, it is just that we can't know one without the other. A coin has a tails and a heads. You never see the front of a car without a back. When you eliminate one you eliminate the other.
God is other and God is me. God is this and that. Just like the saying, "nothing is at it seems to be, nor is it otherwise.
While there is general agreement with your post Xmac
perhaps it can be opened up a little more.
You start with
If the answer is yes, then it is saying that god is something.No, I do not agree with this particular. 'Is god absolute?' is not seeking to find an answer which objectifies god. Such a question might be 'is god a catholic/jew/muslim?' In other words using a noun which objectifies. 'Absolute' as used in the O.P. was refined later in the thread as:
So it would be fine to reframe the Q as, "is god perfect, complete & without restriction or qualification?"In the end 'god' is beyond all conceptualisation. No argument with that. But we are speaking beings and must use an imperfect (some might say polarised) language since we seem unable to hold silence (if we could we would hardly be here in this forum).
Let me nudge just a little further: Christians, it seems to me, objectify and personify god.
'Our Father who art in heaven' for example; the father/monarch figure. Muslims are just straight nuts about it for they apparently believe Allah can be annoyed/angry/etc. so they cannot view Allah as absolute. Both these positions necessitate a separation ... god becomes 'other'. Now i can understand the objectfication ...it's a linguistic trap we can all fall into however, i am stumped as to the personification. On one hand Christians refer to the "Holy Spirit" then proceed to personify ... thus ignoring that "Spirit/Energy/non material...." is not a person & is not in concrete form.
What is most interesting so far in this thread is the lack of willingness of the Christians present to stand up and give reply to the O.P. question; yet they have so many clues such as "I am the alpha & the omega."
Nithing,
absolute, perfect, and complete are all adjectives. Although your intention may not be to objectify god, the question can't help but do so because every adjective modifies a noun: a person, place or thing.
I can't say whether or not objectifying or personalizing god as others may do is wrong or doesn't work, I only know that it doesn't work for me. What others do is not my business even if they're trying to push it on me. That stuff used to bother me because I was still afraid it was true.
absolute, perfect, and complete are all adjectives.
Yes, you are right Xmac.
Dam limitation of language.
Ok...that's this thread done.
Too bad really .... it could have been helpful.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.