Conversation, discussion, debate.

RJM Corbet said:
Ok. You start ...
Click to expand...
Sure! I mean, consider the Tree of Trust: It’s a given that one may and perhaps usually should trust a trustworthy person, and the trustworthiness of a person is contingent on the person knowing what’s best and having one’s best interests at heart. Therefore, I see no reason to not believe a being who is wholly wise and fully loving would know best what I should do in every situation. Don’t you agree?
 
Last edited:
spockrates said:
Sure! I mean, consider the tree of trust: It’s a given that one may and sometimes should trust a trustworthy person. Therefore, I see no reason to not believe a being who is wholly trustworthy, wise and loving would know best what I should do in every situation. Don’t you agree?
Click to expand...
In general imo it's a loaded question because 'God' is not a (being) person. God may communicate with people in human terms, but what is being communicated are spiritual laws that are often at odds with natural laws.

We have free will. That means spiritual beings are not allowed to help us unless we ask first.

It may be only in extremity that a person is ready to surrender their ego. So: "Unless you become like a little child," etc?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
In general imo it's a loaded question because 'God' is not a (being) person. God may communicate with people in human terms, but what is being communicated are spiritual laws that are often at odds with natural laws.

We have free will. That means spiritual beings are not allowed to help us unless we ask first.

It may be only in extremity that a person is ready to surrender their ego. So: "Unless you become like a little child," etc?
Click to expand...
Fascinating! Are you saying the Lord is a what, but not a who? Or are you thinking the Lord is one what in three whos? Or are you of the opinion the Lord is one what in one who? Or do you have some other understanding of the Lord cited in the passage you quoted?
 
spockrates said:
Fascinating! Are you saying the Lord is a what, but not a who? Or are you thinking the Lord is one what in three whos? Or are you of the opinion the Lord is one what in one who? Or do you have some other understanding of the Lord cited in the passage you quoted?
Click to expand...
All/none of the above.

"For I accept every sacrifice, and I am their Lord supreme. But they know not my pure Being, and because of this they fall.

For those who worship the gods go to the gods, and those who worship the fathers go to the fathers. Those who worship the lower spirits go to the lower spirits; but those who worship me come unto me.

He who offers to me with devotion only a leaf, or a flower or a fruit, or even a little water, this I accept from that yearning soul, because with a pure heart it was offered with love."

Bhagavad Gita 9:34-26
 
I’m interested in learning about Hinduism, and I think that’s a quote from one of the religion’s texts.

But I’m a logical thinker, as my user name suggests. Isn’t it illogical to say both all and none are the case?

I mean, it sounds like you are saying the Lord God is a sometimes a what and at the same time is never a what, which seams to me a self-contradiction.
 
Last edited:
spockrates said:
Isn’t it illogical to say both all and none are the case?
Click to expand...
Schrodingers cat?

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates nature. Spirit 'weaves' nature. The greater wheel of spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature, but is not turned by it. Imo
 
RJM Corbet said:
Schrodingers cat?

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates nature. Spirit 'weaves' nature. The greater wheel of spirit turns the lesser wheel of nature, but is not turned by it. Imo
Click to expand...
Over my head. Perhaps because I’m a dog person?

Let me try to explain why I’m having difficulty grasping your meaning: When the writer of Proverbs uses the word, Lord, that word is a noun. It’s an accepted fact that a noun can only be a person, a place or a thing. By saying the Lord is never a being, that logically leaves only three possibilities: The Lord is a place, a thing, or both.

Which of these three do you prefer?
 
spockrates said:
God is a sometimes a what and at the same time is never a what, which seams to me a self-contradiction.
Click to expand...
Light is a wave until I try to measure it, then it becomes a particle. It is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle: the more I know about one state, the less I can know about the other state.
spockrates said:
It’s an accepted fact that a noun can only be a person, a place or a thing. By saying the Lord is never a being, that logically leaves only three possibilities: The Lord is a place, a thing, or both.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately dictionary definitions may not apply? Spirit may be at least as complicated and apparently contradictary as quantum mechanics?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
Light is a wave until I try to measure it, then it becomes a particle. It is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle: the more I know about one state, the less I can know about the other state.
Click to expand...
Affirmative. But is it possible light is also both not a particle and not a wave at the same time?

Unfortunately dictionary definitions may not apply? Perhaps Spirit is at least as complicated and apparently contradictary as quantum mechanics?
Click to expand...

If the Lord, the Spirit, God, or whatever noun we choose is not something that a noun can be used to describe, then should we trust any religious book that uses a noun to describe this Lord, Spirit, God or Other? Indeed, can we sincerely use any of these nouns ourselves?
 
spockrates said:
But is it possible light is also not a particle and not a wave at the same time?
Click to expand...
I don't know. To me light is the shadow of God. Light is often used as an expression of Spirit. Darkness is the lack of light, not the opposite of light.
spockrates said:
the Lord, the Spirit, God, or whatever noun we choose is not something that a noun can be used to describe, then should we trust any religious book that uses a noun to describe this Lord, Spirit, God or Other? Indeed, can we sincerely use any of these nouns
Click to expand...
Again, it's the attempt of words to vaguely outline what language cannot adequately contain. It's not the dictionary words that matter. The words are the shell of the nut, imo.
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
I don't know. To me light is the shadow of God. Light is often used as an expression of Spirit. Darkness is the lack of light, not the opposite of light.
Click to expand...
Sorry for being clear as mud! I was speaking of actual — not metaphorical — light.

Again, it's the attempt of words to vaguely outline what language cannot adequately contain. It's not the dictionary words that matter. The words are the shell of the nut, imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah! I think I get it: The noun God is accurate, but our definition of a noun is too narrow. One might say a noun can be a person, place, thing or spirit. Since these are exclusive categories, we might say that just as a person is never a place, so too a spirit is never a thing. Does that ring true to you?
 
Last edited:
spockrates said:
Sorry for being clear as mud! I was speaking of actual — not metaphorical — light.
Click to expand...
So was I. Light is a flow of electromagnetic waves/particles. Without one another the wave/particle cannot exist, yet when I try to look at a wave, it vanishes to an infinitely tiny point that takes up no space, and when I try to pin down the position of the point, it becomes a wave that spreads out to occupy infinity. Can it be neither wave not particle? I don't know. Does it matter?
spockrates said:
Yeah, yeah! I think I get it: The noun God is accurate, but our definition of a noun is too narrow. One might say a noun can be a person, place, thing or spirit. Since these are exclusive categories, we might say that just as a person is never a place, so too a spirit is never a thing. Does that ring true to you?
Click to expand...
A person occupies a place in space. Spirit is the reality. Plato's cave.

Spirit is not bound by nature. It is not bound by what I can detect with my five natural senses. It's not bound by words. It's vaguely like trying to describe sight by reference to the sense of smell, sort of. Imo ...
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
So was I. Light is a flow of electromagnetic waves/particles. Without one another the wave/particle cannot exist, yet when I try to look at a wave, it vanishes to an infinitely tiny point that takes up no space, and when I try to pin down the position of the point, it becomes a wave that spreads out to occupy infinity. Can it be neither wave not particle? I don't know. Does it matter?
Click to expand...
It does if one is to hold the opinion that nothing illogical can possibly be true.
Spirit is not bound by nature. It is not bound by what we can detect with our five natural senses. It's not bound by words. It's like trying to describe sight by using the sense of smell, sort of. Imo ...
Click to expand...
Then why are you using words to describe spirit if no words can describe spirit? Isn’t it better to say nothing about God at all, since anything we say will be untrue?
 
spockrates said:
I does if one is to hold the opinion that nothing illogical can possibly be true.
Click to expand...
But I didn't say that. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time. A photon is both a particle and a wave at the same time. Is that logical?
spockrates said:
Then why are you using words to describe spirit if no words can describe spirit?
Click to expand...
Scripture uses words to give an idea of spiritual laws. Christ used parables and also the mystery of his own life to explain spiritual laws. But I do not think you will be satisfied with anything I say, so ...
 
RJM Corbet said:
But I didn't say that. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time. A photon is both a particle and a wave at the same time. Is that logical?

Scripture uses words to give an idea of spiritual laws. Christ used parables and also the mystery of his own life to explain spiritual laws. But I do not think you will be satisfied with anything I say, so ...
Click to expand...
Oh, you’re fine! Good talking with you! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top