On a "Maximally Great Being".

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you for your considered response. With all due respect to an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, before whom I would quail, I question from a Buddhist perpective the validity of the first premise as raised. He argues also apparently the validity of belief itself as an epistemological basis. I am not convinced of that, coming from a scientific perspective. e or point to him,her or it, but are happy to hang around, so to speak..

A maximum differentiation would be so not-subtle that we might have trouble seeing it. To use your wall analogy, maybe the 'spot' is so big that spans your field of view, and the other color of the wall is outside your field of view.

The theist would say that God exists, and he brought us into existence using his power. So, for a time, there was just God, then there was God co-existing with us. God was 'all', then became 'not-all'. But I'm not following how co-existence causes him to lose his 'maximality'.

I am aware of quantum entanglement, but I think it is unjustified to say that EVERYTHING of every time and space is connected. We are still trying to find out if entanglement actually enables super-luminal communication. It is not enough to know that my particle is entangled with your particle across the room. You must also know the relationship between the two, the truth table of if A is spin X, then B is spin Y and so on, for any communication to take place.

I have read a few things on quantum mechanics, but never the idea that something is fluctuating between existence and non-existence.

Originally posted by JS357
Me: I like to say God is so great He can work His wonders without actually existing. Is this the short form?

You: Probably - it doesn't make sense either.

Eastern traditions tend to assert that an idea is absurd by stating the idea in ways that take it for real, and state the implications.

When this is done correctly, it states the truth of the matte ...[text shortened]... ression may miss the mark and be greeted with a head thump, so I will add a 😵

Oh, so it's satire or mockery, right? Why didn't you say so? We have both of those even in 'western' thought.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Oh, so it's satire or mockery, right? Why didn't you say so? We have both of those even in 'western' thought.

I didn't say so because I don't think "mockery" conveys the point. I will not persist further in this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think this has been written in 'spiritual'... The language of nonsense.

it was written in ontological fashion I believe, though there are some glaring holes

Originally posted by divegeester
Well none of it makes any sense to me, so feel free to explain any of it in terms a simplton like me could understand.

For me much of the Buddhist philosophy posted in this forum remains little more than contrived mystic goobledygook. Sorry if that seems harsh, but it is my honest opnion.

I will accept that, as it has been such for some time.. No offense meant or taken. The other conversations can be followed if they are helpful. They are on the same OP and will constitute what I can offer anyway.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A maximum differentiation would be so not-subtle that we might have trouble seeing it. To use your wall analogy, maybe the 'spot' is so big that spans your field of view, and the other color of the wall is outside your field of view.

The theist would say that God exists, and he brought us into existence using his power. So, for a time, there was just ...[text shortened]... , but never the idea that something is fluctuating between existence and non-existence.

Sorry, I was typing a reply and the computer ate it. It is late and I will continue tomorrow. Thank you for your response.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A maximum differentiation would be so not-subtle that we might have trouble seeing it. To use your wall analogy, maybe the 'spot' is so big that spans your field of view, and the other color of the wall is outside your field of view.

The theist would say that God exists, and he brought us into existence using his power. So, for a time, there was just , but never the idea that something is fluctuating between existence and non-existence.

I see where you are now, and what I acknowledge is a solid big theistic thought.

[The analogy is being stretched, and I would use the word 'differentiation' in an edge and form defining manner, but the point is made. One could ask as the wall and patch (still undifferentialable) expand beyond ones conceptual limit, how does one then know it is even a wall? Differentiation of solidities is required.]

However, the thought you express represents to me a significant stage I passed on my theistic path. I began asking where "God" stops? What is inside of "him" and what is outside of "him". Can indeed anything be outside of "God"? If we use time bound terminology as evident in one of your statements I would from a previous theistic viewpoint have difficulty as seeing God as different "before"" and "after" any point of time. My theistic concept then involved a "God" that was time itself, infinite and unlimited.

Also a self-existent Being is argued in Buddhism to require that such be totally and irrevocably independent otherwise it is dependent and thus not self-existent unto itself alone. It cannot be said to 'not exist' for there is phenomenon relatively. and equally it was clear, to me anyway' that the argument of the need for utter independence to define an 'existent' was irrefutable. Thus for me then I could not say 'God' existed in a manner totally cut off from any interaction or dependence on an 'other', namely life and us. I hung around a form of Pantheism then, for a while.

Is not 'God' absolute?, I asked myself. Or is 'God'' both absolute and relative?

The path further cleared for me as I encountered the conundrums of quantum findings, which seem to concur with the manifestation of particles of neither existing nor not-existing. I am of the impression that apparent superluminal behaviour of co-relative particles has been shown many times now and is acknowledged, but interpretations differ as to what it means. Some still say after a century or more, there is more to be found and finally something solid unto itself will appear. I am not at all convinced of that, as much of our expanding technology is growing around such phenomenon as tunneling and quantum entanglement. And it fits beautifully with Buddhist insight and logic.

This is also applied to our own concept of a 'self', wherein such is seen as an emergent dependent phenomenon of the many streams physical and mental that we have, referred to as 'skhandas" in Buddhism. This accords btw with a modern and dominant psychological understanding of the formation of personality.

Theoretically and conceptually, if not physically, how do we measure 'maximal'' in cosmological terms? Does the Universe have an edge? Where does time and spacial distance arise apart from mental perception?

Hopefully you can see something of where I am coming from, even if you disagree, and why I question the use of the phrase 'maximally great being'. If not, I will aquiesce as I do not see I can of my own ability go further in explanation of my and the Buddhist viewpoint (and I think poorly expressed by me).

That is too but a way stop.

Finally the Bull must also disappear.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls]

Originally posted by Taoman
I see where you are now, and what I acknowledge is a solid big theistic thought.

[The analogy is being stretched, and I would use the word 'differentiation' in an edge and form defining manner, but the point is made. One could ask as the wall and patch (still undifferentialable) expand beyond ones conceptual limit, how does one then know it is even a wa o disappear.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls]

I know it is a wall because it is standing straight up.

Heh, here's my attempt at using the 'language of spirituality'. Everything is inside and outside of God. Inside, in the sense that God surrounds everything; outside, in the sense that we have distinctive identities (souls) and are capable of rejecting or accepting God.

My theistic concept of God was that he created 'time' as well as energy, mass, and space.

Buddhists may argue something like 'a thing cannot exist without differentiation between (or reference to) other existent things', but I'm not ready to accept that.

This is again a strange concept of quantum findings you bring up. I have not read that there are particles in both an existent and non-existent state. I have not read that there are any particles that are superluminal, let alone shown many times. If you have some links, I'd be happy to take a look.

I suggest that some of the desire to entangle [pardon the pun] Buddhist philosophy with Quantum Mechanics is borne of the idea that both have a certain air of mystery to them, rather than any more substantial connection. It would not be the first time that a religion jumped on the scientific bandwagon for validation.

Edit: I have to go...will respond to the rest of the post later.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I know it is a wall because it is standing straight up.

Heh, here's my attempt at using the 'language of spirituality'. Everything is inside and outside of God. Inside, in the sense that God surrounds everything; outside, in the sense that we have distinctive identities (souls) and are capable of rejecting or accepting God.

My theistic concept of G ...[text shortened]... gon for validation.

Edit: I have to go...will respond to the rest of the post later.

And continuing to solidify this analogical wall, how do you know it is standing straight up? By the differentiation of higher and lower. Any phenomenon to be experienced by perception requires differentiation of some sort.

I talk now in the following from your perspective and seek to show its logical difficulties:

By having distinctive identities (souls) (where did they come from?) that have the ability to reject or accept "God", to place themselves beyond "God" - and for eternity I believe - it is thus quite clearly proven this conception of a "God" Being is not maximal. We are also quite able to resist this "God" as if "He" was just a big man. "He" can wipe out and create Universes but we however....! I have trouble resisting the local smart car salesman.
Even the mythology of Satan in the Biblical tradition was a fallen angel, created originally by God.

"He" is either the ONE source of ALL, or he is not an omnipotent, maximal Being.

Apposite to this is the Buddhist view that all is mind-like, interdependent and without boundary or final definition, and Buddhas , Gods and great mythological stories are mind-made and projected in the construction of inner meaning. The way is to fully recognise this, become wise, and with the wisdom grow in compassion. We are not finally separate and thus we do not treat those afflicted by ignorance, hatred, or greed (The Three Poisons) with rejection but seek to help this part of us to see the Big View. And we too are part of that affliction, that arises in our minds.

Here is Wiki on Quantum entanglement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
It has numerous links to associated pages.

There are many attempts to explain the clearly demonstrated phenomenon, phenomenon that are now not denied in physics. Its the interpretation that they argue about.

I do not wish make equivalence of Buddhist views with physical science, but the echoes of similar "qualities" is interesting.

I am away for a few days.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Taoman
And continuing to solidify this analogical wall, how do you know it is standing straight up? By the differentiation of higher and lower. Any phenomenon to be experienced by perception requires differentiation of some sort.

I talk now in the following from your perspective and seek to show its logical difficulties:

By having distinctive identities (souls ...[text shortened]... s of similar "qualities" is interesting.

I am away for a few days.

Cheers.

Maybe I should ask if the wall exists even if no one perceives it. Is a differentiator required?

I'm not a theist, but I'm trying to understand why there are logical difficulties for them here.

Souls, they would say, are created by God/MGB.

The ability to accept or reject comes from free will.

One does not 'place' themselves beyond God. It's more like they fail to take the plea bargain [salvation] in a court of law and are sentenced by the judge [God]. [Side note: not all theists believe in eternal punishment - a JW might say the 'lost' just die and are not resurrected.]

One so sentenced has not successfully resisted God - quite the opposite.

They would say God is the one source of all, sure.

I am not sure what 'all is mind-like' means.
I am not sure that everything is without boundary or final definition, or even if having a 'final definition' is important.
I would think that anyone with too high a degree of the Three Poisons is not worth accepting.

I have read that link before and I read it again after your post and I still see nothing that claims particles are in a simultaneous state of both existence and non-existence.

Originally posted by Taoman
A Maximally Great Being cannot exist.
To exist requires a differentiation.

To be a Functional Unit amongst
and transcending
other functional units,
means it can never be maximal.
It must be All and Absolute.

To be a Functional Unit alone,
means no differentiation.
Does it then "exist"?

A Maximally Great Being cannot not-exist.
To n ...[text shortened]...
Does that which is unnameable and without form "exist" or equally, shown not to exist?

A Maximally Great Being certainly does exist - but your finite conditioned and delusional mind cannot comprehend it.

You are like a germ on the back of the elephant trying to describe the elephant.

Your attempt to display and dazzle us all with intellectualism - has made you speculate and over think the subject - which has left you in a place of bewilderment.

When a person rejects God - all they are left with is the big bang- the muddy puddle and the lightning bolt.

I don't think so.............that scenario is for all the dishonest people - or if not the dishonest - the insane.

Originally posted by Dasa
A Maximally Great Being certainly does exist - but your finite conditioned and delusional mind cannot comprehend it.

You are like a germ on the back of the elephant trying to describe the elephant.

Your attempt to display and dazzle us all with intellectualism - has made you speculate and over think the subject - which has left you in a place of bewilde ...[text shortened]... ..........that scenario is for all the dishonest people - or if not the dishonest - the insane.

I think you and a couple of the other posters have misunderstood Taomans arguments here.
I dont think he is trying to dazzle us at all. I dont think he is delusional.

And being left in "a place of bewilderment" (although not the way you are referring to it) is actually the path to enlightenment.
The true student of spirituality realizes that all answers are contained within himself.
Taoman is merely trying to express some of these answers.

"When a person rejects God - all they are left with is the big bang - the muddy puddle and the lightning bolt."

Really? C'mon man. Stop peddling this black/white, right/wrong (etc.) version of spirituality. Do you really believe there are only 2 types of thinking? (Or is it 3?)
(1. the true adept who recognizes the Vedas as the final authority on everything.
2. The religionist who pursues a false religion. (christians)
3. The sciency guy who attempts to explain the universe as he sees it through the understandings of modern physics, who can see the evidence for a big bang, and a likely scenario for the emergence of life.)

Did I get that right? Just those 3? No others?

And dont call him a "germ". I'm sure Taoman will take no offence from this, but I for one will butt in and stand up for unwarranted put-downs.


some one comes and starts a thread about a very difficult topic, bearing his 'soul', and you just come along and call him a germ?
Cant you see how off-putting and counterproductive this type of thinking is?

Taoman deserves more respect than that.
In fact, anyone who starts a thread in this forum with 'unconventional' ideas should be supported, as I tried to support you way back when you first entered this site.
Peace

Originally posted by Dasa
A Maximally Great Being certainly does exist - but your finite conditioned and delusional mind cannot comprehend it.

You are like a germ on the back of the elephant trying to describe the elephant.

Your attempt to display and dazzle us all with intellectualism - has made you speculate and over think the subject - which has left you in a place of bewilde ...[text shortened]... ..........that scenario is for all the dishonest people - or if not the dishonest - the insane.

you are a disgrace - and the worst germ on this site.

Take your putrid thoughts elsewhere arse clown

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I know it is a wall because it is standing straight up.

Heh, here's my attempt at using the 'language of spirituality'. Everything is inside and outside of God. Inside, in the sense that God surrounds everything; outside, in the sense that we have distinctive identities (souls) and are capable of rejecting or accepting God.

My theistic concept of G gon for validation.

Edit: I have to go...will respond to the rest of the post later.

Buddhists may argue something like 'a thing cannot exist without differentiation between (or reference to) other existent things', but I'm not ready to accept that.

Really? Please identify for me a “thing” that is not differentiated from all that is not that particular “thing”. (A and ~ A, and all that.) Has nothing particularly to do with Buddhism; Wittgenstein could be cited.

To speak of an undifferentiated “thing” is strictly incoherent (but that is partly why Buddhists, and other nondualists, might refer to the Whole—the gestalt—as “no-thing” ).

There exists a thing
that is not different
in any way from any
other thing?!

Ontologically, I am not convinced that to call the universe a “thing” makes sense (and I have argued that against cosmological “proofs of god” ). Even so, to speak of multiple universes still implies differentiation, at least in principle.

BTW, speech similar to Taoman’s OP has often been used to illustrate (rather than simply claim, to “show” rather than just “say” ) the absurdities that can be involved in trying to talk about that “whereof one cannot [sensibly] speak” (Wittgenstein, the Tractatus, bracketed word my edit). Whether the OP ultimately works in that way or not, the “exist and not-exist” language seems a clear example of illustrating a similar logical absurdity to speaking of undifferentiated ”things”. It’s a technique similar to a more logically rigorous reductio ad absurdum, but is not always identified as such. (Does a deductive inference leading to a reductio, have to be so labeled for anyone to get it? Well, I did feel compelled to add the "?!" to my little doggerel above 🙁 ). All linguistic communication takes place within some language game; failure to perceive the language game, or simply transferring terms from one language game to another (Wittgenstein's criticism of philosophy), results in misunderstanding.

Unless you have some bizarro-definition of “thing”… (Sorry, couldn't resist! 😉 Usually, you know, I agree with you.)