• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we even try describe?

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why suspicion?
Well, nothing I've read or seen and no one I've asked has any credible concept of a real god, one with objective existence; nor is there any clear notion of 'godness', the quality a real god would have and a superscientist who could create universes and raise the dead would lack. So I hypothesize that neither of those ideas exista in any credible and coherent form. But I freely acknowledge that suitable counterexamples, that's to say, clear, meaningful and coherent definitions of 'real god' and 'real godness' would refute my hypothesis.

It really does seem odd that after an historical record showing at least ten thousand years of religious beliefs of H sap sap, in 2019 there's still no test that will tell me whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Since we human beings can not truly understand what God or a Buddha is. Should we even try describing them with our own human words?

Can we even give them respect if we try describing them to other human beings when we do not fully understand God or Buddha?

That is the essence of art.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you think “I am that I am” needs objective verification?
If the words were cheerfully written on a stone or a cactus, no. But are they written on anything real in this case? Not (a) as far as I can see, nor (b) as far as anyone can tell me.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
If the words were cheerfully written on a stone or a cactus, no. But are they written on anything real in this case? Not (a) as far as I can see, nor (b) as far as anyone can tell me.

Will you kindly elaborate?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Will you kindly elaborate?
Most happily.

I know how to determine whether this real keyboard I'm typing on is a dachshund or a combine harvester or a species of carp or magnesium chloride or not (and for the record, it's none of those). What is a real God, and accordingly from that definition, what test will determine whether my keyboard is God or not?

And what is the quality of "godness", the real quality that a real god would have, but a real superscientist who can create real universes and bring the dead back to life would lack? That too seems to be undefined in terms applicable to something real.

"I am what I am" runs away from answering these questions, just like "Go away!" would. So it totally fails to tell me what I want to know.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
Why do you think “I am that I am” needs objective verification?

In one sense it can be objectively verified, and that is the visual sense.

Photons active receptors in the eye, and ultimately there is the quality of ‘seeing’ the external world...which is constructed in the visual cortex.

So, when you look at the external world, you are seeing your brain.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Most happily.

I know how to determine whether this real keyboard I'm typing on is a dachshund or a combine harvester or a species of carp or magnesium chloride or not (and for the record, it's none of those). What is a real God, and accordingly from that definition, what test will determine whether my keyboard is God or not?

And what is the quality of "godness", the real quality that a real god would have, but a real superscientist who can create real universes and bring the dead back to life would lack? That too seems to be undefined in terms applicable to something real.

Are these doubts even valid? God is omnipresent. And your keyboard is not.

"I am what I am" runs away from answering these questions, just like "Go away!" would. So it totally fails to tell me what I want to know.

‘I am that I am’ cannot run away anywhere, away from you or from me or from anyone. I would say that must be a great drama for god. Nothing serious.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Yes. Agreed. Yet no one doubts “I exist”. It does not require a third party validation.
The "I" i only in humans EGO :) many humans seen the body as self. But is it really? Take a microscope and look at your own body, you will find that the deeper you look the less mass there is and the more space between athoms there is. so body is not as solid as you think ;) So it can not be a self.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The "I" i only in humans EGO :) many humans seen the body as self. But is it really? Take a microscope and look at your own body, you will find that the deeper you look the less mass there is and the more space between athoms there is. so body is not as solid as you think ;) So it can not be a self.

What is ego? Is ‘I am that I am’ an ego? Do you say ‘I’ is an ego, so I do not exist?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
What is ego? Is ‘I am that I am’ an ego?
Yes that is the Ego coming forth :) You point at your body and say, this is me. but how can it be "you" when the body is always changing. When you was born, you had a baby body, today you are adult and everything within your body (cells) have been changed multiple time. So how can we say body is self?
Ego is the point where a person say "this is me" or The body is me. we tryt to make individuality out of something that is not truly solid :)
The Name is not self either :) The names does not make it you.
(not the best description i have done) But i hope you understand
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Yes that is the Ego coming forth :) You point at your body and say, this is me. but how can it be "you" when the body is always changing. When you was born, you had a baby body, today you are adult and everything within your body (cells) have been changed multiple time. So how can we say body is self?
Ego is the point where a person say "this is me" or The body is me. we tryt to make individuality out of something that is not truly solid :)
The Name is not self either :) The names does not make it you.
(not the best description i have done) But i hope you understand


Yes. One can see body, one can see cognitions, perceptions, and feelings in mind. But one is not the seen objects surely.

When you see and strip away all those objects as ‘not me’, the reality of that seeing-knowing cannot be rejected. "I am this" stands modified as pure awareness, which some call "I am". Furthermore, once the limiting barriers of 'khandas' are stripped away what remains is one awareness only. So, 'I am that I am' is not the ego "I am this body-mind complex".
 
Last edited:

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Yes. One can see body, one can see cognitions, perceptions, and feelings in mind. But one is not the seen objects surely.

When you see and strip away all those objects as ‘not me’, the reality of that seeing-knowing cannot be rejected. "I am this" stands modified as pure awareness, which some call "I am". Furthermore, once the limiting barriers of 'khandas' are stripped away what remains is one awareness only. So, 'I am that I am' is not the ego "I am this body-mind complex".
I have to disagree with you a little :)
When you look in the mirror, Do you see you "self" or do you see only a reflextion of what you think of "you self" ? Is it truly you in the mirror?

Or if you look in to a pond, and see what looks like "you" Is it you? or is it only the sunlight that reflect of the body that is thought of as "you" or the "self"?

If you have two photos, one that portray you as a young person and one from today. Is it the same person that we see in the photo, or is it only a image of who "you" used to "be"?
Again it is only an reflextion ) it is not you

IMHO :)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Are these doubts even valid? God is omnipresent. And your keyboard is not.
Two questions arising from that ─

First, what real thing is denoted here by the word "God"?

Second, the only real thing reasonably suspected of being omnipresent is mass-energy. If 'God' is a synonym for 'mass-energy', why don't we say 'mass-energy' instead? And why would anyone want to worship mass-energy?
‘I am that I am’ cannot run away anywhere, away from you or from me or from anyone.
None of that tells us what real being or thing (if any) is denoted by "I am that I am" / "God" nor what test will tell us whether any particular real being or thing is "I am that I am" / "God" or not.

And that's the question I'm still concerned with. Without the answer I have no idea what in reality we're talking about; and if anyone else does, they ain't sayin'. Which seems to make the conclusion both evidence-based and reasonable that we're talking about imaginary things, not real ones, wouldn't you agree?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I have to disagree with you a little :)
When you look in the mirror, Do you see you "self" or do you see only a reflextion of what you think of "you self" ? Is it truly you in the mirror?

Or if you look in to a pond, and see what looks like "you" Is it you? or is it only the sunlight that reflect of the body that is thought of as "you" or the "self"?

If you have two photos, one that portray you as a young person and one from today. Is it the same person that we see in the photo, or is it only a image of who "you" used to "be"?
Again it is only an reflextion ) it is not you

IMHO :)

But I do not deny even a little of what you say above.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Some Buddhists today are Atheists, others are not. Personally, I believe there to be countless God, Buddhas Tao`s or Dao`s and probably beings I do not know about. but I only follow the teaching of Buddha Sakyamuni.
Then your premise is arbitrarily presenting a comparison, that is outside your beliefs, ie you are associating others religious beliefs, with your garbage.

It has no context to what you are trying to discuss.

Instead of speaking for yourself, you associate your religious ignorance, with other beliefs. Its either dishonest, ignorant, or both.:)
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Two questions arising from that ─

First, what real thing is denoted here by the word "God"?

Second, the only real thing reasonably suspected of being omnipresent is mass-energy. If 'God' is a synonym for 'mass-energy', why don't we say 'mass-energy' instead? And why would anyone want to worship mass-energy?
None of that tells us what real being or thing (if any) is denoted by "I am that I am" / "God" nor what test will tell us whether any particular real being or thing is "I am that I am" / "God" or not.

Immediately a question arises. How we know of energy and mass? If the awareness with which you know energy and mass is unreal, how real your knowing can be?

And that's the question I'm still concerned with. Without the answer I have no idea what in reality we're talking about; and if anyone else does, they ain't sayin'. Which seems to make the conclusion both evidence-based and reasonable that we're talking about imaginary things, not real ones, wouldn't you agree?

Actually just the opposite. As per physicalism, what we sense and know are only representations. The presumption is that there is an objective reality out there. But we never know that as it is. We only know that which is concocted by brain. We can never know the reality. People think that materialism is about real things. It is an illusion. Quantum Contextuality indicates that you do not measure some ore-defined values. But measurement yields results as per the context of the measurement.

The world view of idealism has no such problem of double reality, since awareness does not require conction by mechanism.

This whole business of God, imo, hinges on one point: Whether our awareness is unborn or was the awareness born magically from inert materials. In the latter case, how physical ultimates that are characterised by mass, charge, spin, momentum etc. became conscious of feelings and perceptions and developed desire for tasty food and sex, is magical. The eliminative materialism is self refuting. And the reductive materialism does not explain our qualitative experiences.

Less magical and more parsimonious is the proposition that consciousness is the ontological primitive. Such an understanding does not violate any physical laws. Such a view has no need to explain Hard problem of consciousness’. And the view of ‘consciousness’ as ontological primitive allows for explanation for enlightened teachers who are truly non dual and timeless.

I cannot prove that idealism is correct and you cannot prove to me that materialism explains anything at all. I cannot also systematically explain to you why I think that idealism is parsimonious. Therefore I invited you to view a video. My idea is that that video can provide a framework for discussion, if you so wish.

Boundary-less and Limitless
 
Top