Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Omniscience of Divine Being.
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 76 of 95 (207850)
05-13-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
05-13-2005 3:46 PM


Re: Monotheistic vs Pantheistic
That sounds like a way to choose books and to use some books however I think there are books that I choose to read and reread in order to understand the author. It's good to be flexible. Roberts first book is small but tells a story that I think to understand you would have to start at the beginning and read through it and then maybe give it one more going over. On the other hand it's entirely up to you. It just seemed to me that you were trying to sum up her position from a quote and the whole thing missed what she was writing about.
gotta run to work,
lfen
ABE: ps, I like libraries or used book stores, or locally owned book stores, I personally don't shop at Walmart, or Barnes and Noble but stay local.
This message has been edited by lfen, 05-13-2005 01:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 05-13-2005 3:46 PM Phat has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 77 of 95 (208258)
05-14-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by lfen
05-13-2005 12:42 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
I'm more interested in where does "what you want" come from. Do we have the freewill to choose what we want? My short answer is "No".
And my short answer is, "I don't know." But I am of the belief that our consciousness opens up new sort of dimension of existence in which might possibly lie a self with real power to escape the natural cause and effect chain. This requires a belief in metaphysics. I would guess and rightly so that a person without this belief such as yourself would be forced to answer "no" there is no ability to determine which desires we will have or which one of these will eventually win out in the decision making process and therefore no freewill.
You seem to be approaching the nondual formulation here. I like this but am a little surprised that you are getting this close. Pleased but surprised.
Call it what you will... I really have no idea how to comprehend God and am willing to accept any metaphor that might give me a better understanding of Him... though I'm beginning to realize that WHAT He may be is not nearly so important as WHO He is.
I myself think free will is a botched concept for the fact that the organism is the locus of conditioning and thus must be "held responsible" by a system in order to modify behaviour.
I think that's an acceptable self-consistent logical conclusion for a naturalist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lfen, posted 05-13-2005 12:42 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:46 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 78 of 95 (208269)
05-14-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
05-13-2005 1:25 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
I see the point that consciousness does not appear to provide the "spark" that begins the firing of the neurons to initiate the process of movement, but if there is to be freewill, must it really reside this first spark? To me it only proves that our brains are slow and certain operations lag others. Our consciousness is the final product of a vast number of operations, so I guess its expected that our brains would show activity before we are aware of that activity.
1) The person was still conscious of and agreeable to his/her general desire to flex the wrist even though he/she didn't know the exact moment it would happen.
2) This doesn't say anything about pre-planned activity, but only a forced random activity. It would be interesting to know what would be observed if the patient was instructed to flex his/her wrist when the clock was exactly on the top tick mark. I would guess that the patient would be conscious of his/her intention to move almost as soon as the instructions were given. It might also be interesting to do this experiment with a Kung-Fu master and see if his consciousness lags less than the rest of us.
3) As stated at the end: "Although research casts doubt on whether conscious processes cause actions, the data remain consistent with the idea that conscious processes could still exert some effect over actions by modifying the brain processes already under way. The fact that conscious awareness of intention precedes movement by a few hundred milliseconds means that a person could still inhibit certain actions from being made."
If you think that this does negate freewill, then please explain some more. And please give your own definition of freewill since it is undeniable that we all fit the dictionary definition. I think the two amiguities are with the self (what are we?) and with the power to decide (where does it come from?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 05-13-2005 1:25 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:16 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 79 of 95 (208271)
05-14-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lfen
05-13-2005 1:24 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Hi Ifen, I replied to Sidelined already so I won't repeat myself, but I will add something.
They thought they had not actuated the change when in fact they had, but not by any decision on their part. The sense of decision came after their brains had already effected the change to the next slide. The slide changed before they had decided to change it. Thus decision, that to which we attribute deeds, was an illusion.
I disagree with their conclusion here. The "decision" IMO includes everything from the first spike in brain activity to the person beginning to reach for the button. By eliminating all but the brainwave spike they have obviously ensured that our consciousness cannot have a say in the decision. In reality a person is not expected to act randomly and there is time for for cognitive dissonance where the person can consciously debate with himself about what he wants to do before agreeing and acting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lfen, posted 05-13-2005 1:24 AM lfen has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 80 of 95 (208279)
05-15-2005 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hangdawg13
05-14-2005 11:09 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
though I'm beginning to realize that WHAT He may be is not nearly so important as WHO He is.
Interesting distinction but I'm not sure what is being distinguished. How does WHO differs from WHAT? And then why is WHO more important than WHAT?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-14-2005 11:09 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 05-15-2005 10:45 AM lfen has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 81 of 95 (208344)
05-15-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by lfen
05-15-2005 1:46 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Ifen writes:
How does WHO differs from WHAT? And then why is WHO more important than WHAT?
WHO implies the acknowledgement and subsequent belief in a personality....a living God. WHAT implies a concept like infinity which is non personal.
Concepts have little meaning unless animated. I could learn about London, England through books and anecdotal evidence but London would have no real meaning for me unless and until I visited. If I met some people while there, the interaction with personalities and characters would further animate and personify London to now be a place near and dear to me.
Same with God. As a concept, unbelievers toss god around like a theoretical construct. No animation, no personality. Only a believer has had an animated encounter with a living personality...Jesus Christ.
Of course, you may say that it is all in our minds. Of course, we can not have you feel as we do, so to you, we are as inanimate and untrustworthy as our belief is to you.
All we (believers) can say is "You have to meet Him!"
Dawg, do you really have time for such deep metaphysics and spiritual awareness? Don't you have any real homework to do?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-15-2005 08:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:46 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:03 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 83 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-15-2005 1:13 PM Phat has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 82 of 95 (208361)
05-15-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phat
05-15-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Phatboy writes:
Only a believer has had an animated encounter with a living personality...Jesus Christ.
And what about believers who have animated encounters with a living personality like Krishna, Kalli Ma, Shiva, Tara, Allah, and etc?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 05-15-2005 10:45 AM Phat has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 83 of 95 (208364)
05-15-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phat
05-15-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
I'll second that.
We can play around with these theories about what God is and how he works, but it is an impossibility for us to really grasp what God is and how he works. It is hard enough for us to really grasp what we are and how we work. So though this kind of specualting is fun, nothing concrete can come of it and no logical proof can be made. In the end all I can do is trust that God is who He says he is: life, love, light, and truth, and that Jesus was the perfect image of Him. If I know who Jesus is, I know who the Father is, and that is what is truly important.
Dawg, do you really have time for such deep metaphysics and spiritual awareness? Don't you have any real homework to do?
I always have time for deep metaphysical stuff... Nope no homework. Finals were over and done with last week. I don't start lifeguarding again for two weeks, so I've got a whole bunch of free time, which I've been spending reading Crime and Punishment, working around the house and in the yard, and (to my mother's terror) hunting for a crotch rocket to buy off of ebay.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 05-15-2005 01:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phat, posted 05-15-2005 10:45 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:30 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 84 of 95 (208365)
05-15-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Hangdawg13
05-14-2005 11:46 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Hangdawg wrote:
I think the two amiguities are with the self (what are we?) and with the power to decide (where does it come from?).
Hangdawg,
I agree. I am at present more drawn to the problem of the power to decide which appears to a a neuronal response. There is also as you mention or alluded to the ability to inhibit a response that has begun.
The problem of the self I think gets subtler perhaps because it involves behaviours that aren't observable? At present I'm content to take the self as a reference to an organism. This is a naturalist approach and you may find it too limited as it excludes unobservable or "supernatural" phenomena.
I do strongly favor the naturalist approaches of science but ultimately I don't limit my thinking to naturalist conclusions. So though I use a naturalist approach I think my interest in the non dual teachings takes me beyond a pure naturalist perspective. On the other hand I'm very skeptical of the traditional explanations of religion but so are many teachers of the nondual.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-14-2005 11:46 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-18-2005 12:24 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 85 of 95 (208367)
05-15-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hangdawg13
05-15-2005 1:13 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
In the end all I can do is trust that God is who He says he is: life, love, light, and truth, and that Jesus was the perfect image of Him. If I know who Jesus is, I know who the Father is, and that is what is truly important
Hangdawg,
Congratulations on finishing another year of school. Enjoy your vacation time as it sounds like you are.
Your comments remind me of how much yours and Phat's approach to religion is what the Hindu's would call bhakti, or devoted love of God. One appreciation I have of Hinduism (I'm not a convert) is the recognition that different personality types respond to different approaches to spirituality, or God. Some people need a strong personal loving devotion often to a human, or incarnated form of divinity. Others express through service (karma yoga) and others through perceptive insight and meditation.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-15-2005 1:13 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 05-17-2005 8:21 AM lfen has replied
 Message 89 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-18-2005 12:36 PM lfen has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 86 of 95 (208978)
05-17-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by lfen
05-15-2005 1:30 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Ifen writes:
Your comments remind me of how much yours and Phat's approach to religion is what the Hindu's would call bhakti, or devoted love of God. One appreciation I have of Hinduism (I'm not a convert) is the recognition that different personality types respond to different approaches to spirituality, or God. Some people need a strong personal loving devotion often to a human, or incarnated form of divinity. Others express through service (karma yoga) and others through perceptive insight and meditation.
Hangdawg13 is one of the few people at EvC that I can send a private e-mail to and who understand how a Christian believer functions--on a non religious, day to day level.
You note that you are not a convert to Hinduism. You say that some need a loving devotion to a human or incarnated form of a divinity.
Does not incarnated mean human?
Where do you see yourself on your approach to spirituality? When I conduct my informal group/Bible studies at the state detention center, God is on the mind of many who are looking for a solution to their current predicament. Often,one or more will ask me to pray for them (or with them) and, as an icebreaker type of a question, I will ask them to tell me where God is right now. A common answer?
1) everywhere.
2) In Heaven?
3) I don't know.
Only the ones with a certain sparkle in their eye and a confidance that this too shall pass will say to me, in response to my question,
He is in my heart!
Granted, they were "indoctorinated" in church. Many never went to church, however. There was just something about their awareness and acceptance that showed me that God truly is within them.
Personally, I believe that God is with everyone on the planet.
Like a perfect Gentleman not wishing to be so imposing or an imposition, God the Spirit waits patiently for us to have the freewill unction to trust Him and ask Him in to our heart.
So in other words, God is with everyone but He is not in everyone.
Another cliche: Its not about religion. Its about relationship.
I will agree with many who say that religion is cultural. I believe, however, that Jesus Christ transcends cultural limitations, religious stipulations, and manmade conditions.
I do not know how He reaches people in different cultures. Were I to meet one of them whom He has touched, I would instinctively know that they were transformed as I was transformed. Words would not be necessary.
I heard a good sermon by one of my favorite Pastors, Raul Ries.
He said that three things were necessary for a Christian to effectively communicate without being annoying, pushy, or patronizing.
1) Prayer.(constant daily communication/meditation/relationship) with God.
2) Reading and understanding the Bible on your own (not just listening to what a Pastor or denomination says) and allowing God to speak to you through it
3) Fellowship/communion with other believers.
From an outsider/observer perspective, the instructions appear to be inclusive, limiting, and religiously dogmatic.
That is where the Holy Spirit instructs the mind of a believer. There are times to mingle in the "real world" and to be in it though not of it.
There are times to be in communion with other believers and to pray, allowing God to strengthen, equip and refresh.
There must be a daily time of prayer/meditation...alone...with God.
This is not to be a chore but an eager anticipation.
Ifen writes:
On the other hand I'm very skeptical of the traditional explanations of religion but so are many teachers of the nondual.
When you say "nondual" which of these definitions of dualism do you mean?
In theology, the concept that the world is controlled by two opposing forces, i.e., good and bad, God and Satan. In Philosophy the idea that the world consists of two main components: thought and matter.
I guess that what I am saying is that I would describe dualism as doublemindedness. I am occasionally caught up in it.
One book that I have been reading is talking about absolutes vs relativistic views of spirituality. In a literalist approach to mans fallen nature, it is said that Satan was the first relativist because he offered the option of showing a relative definition between God and created things. Light no longer was absolute...it became relative to dark. Naked became relative to clothing. Honesty became relative to self will. Indeed, self became relative...not to God but to each other.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-17-2005 07:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:30 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by lfen, posted 05-17-2005 10:45 AM Phat has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 87 of 95 (209010)
05-17-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
05-17-2005 8:21 AM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Does not incarnated mean human?
Phat,
I think you are right about that. I think I was using it in a looser sense to mean some specific form of deity. I know in Hinduism that some of the gods are non human for example Hanuman who is a monkey.
My approach to spirituality tends to be intellectual. What Hinduism would call Jnana yoga. Interested in understanding and direct seeing of What Is.
I suppose philosophical dualism is closer to the dualism that I refer to. I'm referring to psychological dualism which is to say the experience of the self, the sense of I am, and the sense that the rest of the universe is not self, is other. This is to say the dualism I refer to is the subject object dualism. The nondual is the state where the subject and the object are not separate, not two.
The experience of the nondual is something that occurs in some people independent of their religion and culture. It is the basis of the teaching of the Buddha and became the flower of Hinduism, but it is also central to Sufism in Islam, and is has arisen in contemplative Christianity at least within Catholicism.
The "solution" to the appearance of duality is when the illusion of the self evaporates. This solution is unnappealing to bhakti types because it involves the loss of the beloved as an object of love and devotion.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 05-17-2005 8:21 AM Phat has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 88 of 95 (209358)
05-18-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by lfen
05-15-2005 1:16 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
I am at present more drawn to the problem of the power to decide which appears to a a neuronal response. There is also as you mention or alluded to the ability to inhibit a response that has begun.
Well, it seems to me from the naturalist standpoint, that we should have no power to determine the future, and I believe this is what sidelined is saying when he says "no freewill". From this naturalist standpoint, one processes leads to another so that even our desires and the final termination of cognitive dissonance are all a consequence of preceeding mindless events.
It is my belief that consciousness opens up a kind of new dimension of reality, the spiritual, and it is from this dimension that real power to determine the future comes from. Sidlined might argue that because this "new dimension" is dependant upon the physical world for existence that it is really just an illusion. To this have two thoughts. How can something you feel be an illusion? If you feel it, then it must be real. Secondly, if existence in this spiritual dimension allows us power to determine the future, then in a way, the physical reality is just as dependant upon this spiritual dimension.
Now the question that has to do with the OP that remains open is can we share God's power to determine? I believe we can.
The problem of the self I think gets subtler perhaps because it involves behaviours that aren't observable? At present I'm content to take the self as a reference to an organism. This is a naturalist approach and you may find it too limited as it excludes unobservable or "supernatural" phenomena.
More than just behaviours are unobservable. Take love or anger. The naturalist perspective holds that we are the sum of our physical parts, yet we cannot objectively describe or understand these feelings simply by understanding how the brain works. These feelings are real, and they are not made less real by the fact that we can see certain areas of the brain light up on an MRI when the person is feeling them.
These are spiritual realities and they can only be understood by shared experience or similes and metaphors, and in the same way, God is Spirit and can only be understood by shared experience or similes and metaphors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:16 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by lfen, posted 05-18-2005 1:25 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 89 of 95 (209361)
05-18-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by lfen
05-15-2005 1:30 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
Congratulations on finishing another year of school. Enjoy your vacation time as it sounds like you are.
Thank ya, I AM definately enjoying it.
One appreciation I have of Hinduism (I'm not a convert) is the recognition that different personality types respond to different approaches to spirituality, or God. Some people need a strong personal loving devotion often to a human, or incarnated form of divinity. Others express through service (karma yoga) and others through perceptive insight and meditation.
Well, Christianity has something for everyone, then with the Trinity.
God is Spirit, which means when you feel and express unmerited love, you have experienced God. God is a man, Jesus Christ. "The Way" became human so that we could understand Him (the perfect metaphor). And there is the Father who observes all deeds done by men and desires that they all follow "The Way".
Have you ever read the "Jesus Sutras"? In them, some of the truths of Christianity are explained in a more Eastern way, that you may find more agreeable. I believe they helped me understand what God is better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 05-15-2005 1:30 PM lfen has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 90 of 95 (209371)
05-18-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Hangdawg13
05-18-2005 12:24 PM


Re: Re-cap of my discombobulated thoughts...
How can something you feel be an illusion? If you feel it, then it must be real.
Hangdawg,
Keep in mind that although I work from a naturalist position that I don't hold that naturalism is sufficient nor is it my goal to reduce everything to a naturalist explanation or description.
I'm going to focus in more detail on your statement about illusion and the alternative "real". I offer two examples to help us sort out our references. Phantom limb sensation is one but although I believe the accounts on phantom limb I've not had a limb amputated so haven't personally experienced it.
Have you done that experiment where you cross your middle finger over your index finger and then felt a marble or ball bearing with your fingertips? When I did it and I've read that when most people do it it feels like you are feeling TWO marbles yet you can look and touch with uncrossed fingers to verify ONE marble. So my question is what sort of reality do feelings report? And to who do they report?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-18-2005 12:24 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by sidelined, posted 05-18-2005 1:57 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 92 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-18-2005 6:22 PM lfen has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024