Define god (s)

[pinkocommie]

Rantings/ravings get you banned here - friendly warning.

[elliebean]

The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.

Ok, but how do we know the perciever isn't wrong?

But of course this is all only a story and is no more valid than your version.

Well, thanks for at least conceeding that.

Ps Thank you for listening to my ravings.

You're welcome, but be careful not to stray away from explaining and into preaching, if you plan to stick around on this forum.

[noquarter]

The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.

Ok, but how do we know the perciever isn't wrong?

If I perceive, from my experience and my knowledge etc, that the ground of existence is Consciousness and you perceive, from your experience and your knowledge that consciousness derives from chemical and neurological processes in the brain. Who is wrong?
Both ways are correct for each perceiver.
It is like the glass half full and half empty scenario.

[Sophus]

The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.

Ok, but how do we know the perciever isn't wrong?

If I perceive, from my experience and my knowledge etc, that the ground of existence is Consciousness and you perceive, from your experience and your knowledge that consciousness derives from chemical and neurological processes in the brain. Who is wrong?
Both ways are correct for each perceiver.
It is like the glass half full and half empty scenario.

Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

[noquarter]

Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.
The psyche(soul) is the life experiences of the observer, in this sense, the psyshe cannot be said to be "empty".

[pinkocommie]

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.

Logical, I'm on board with you...

The psyche(soul) is the life experiences of the observer, in this sense, the psyshe cannot be said to be "empty".

Aww...left turn to Woo Valley, where logic goes to die.    It seems like you're willfully taking something which exists - life experiences - and arbitrarily assigning mystical attributes to it without any reason.  Why do life experiences have to be anything more than life experiences?  By saying life experiences = the psyche = the soul, you're needlessly conflating wildly varying concepts.  Life experiences are real and can be learned from and tell the story of our lives.  There's no reason or necessity behind turning life experiences into some kind of Mystical (capital M) soul nonsense.

[Heathen's Guide]

noquarter, I think you just stumbled onto the origin of about 1/3 of the religions out there.

Aww...left turn to Woo Valley, where logic goes to die.    It seems like you're willfully taking something which exists - life experiences - and arbitrarily assigning mystical attributes to it without any reason.  Why do life experiences have to be anything more than life experiences?  By saying life experiences = the psyche = the soul, you're needlessly conflating wildly varying concepts.  Life experiences are real and can be learned from and tell the story of our lives.  There's no reason or necessity behind turning life experiences into some kind of Mystical (capital M) soul nonsense.

[Sophus]

Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.

My point was that, interpretations, although appearing different, can actually denote the same thing. I think we may be more in agreement than I had originally thought.

[noquarter]

Aww...left turn to Woo Valley, where logic goes to die.    It seems like you're willfully taking something which exists - life experiences - and arbitrarily assigning mystical attributes to it without any reason.  Why do life experiences have to be anything more than life experiences?  By saying life experiences = the psyche = the soul, you're needlessly conflating wildly varying concepts.  Life experiences are real and can be learned from and tell the story of our lives.  There's no reason or necessity behind turning life experiences into some kind of Mystical (capital M) soul nonsense.

Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_%28psychology%29

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

[elliebean]

Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

The original meaning is irrelevant to our purposes, since we're communicating with each other in the here and now, in common English, not in ancient Greek. Etymology is interesting, but not really illuminating in this discussion thus far.

[noquarter]

Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.

My point was that, interpretations, although appearing different, can actually denote the same thing. I think we may be more in agreement than I had originally thought.

I am happy that we are in agreement on this. Thankyou.

[noquarter]

Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

The original meaning is irrelevant to our purposes, since we're communicating with each other in the here and now, in common English, not in ancient Greek. Etymology is interesting, but not really illuminating in this discussion thus far.

The breath, is usually taken for granted, even though it is with us in the here and now. I am glad that Sophus, knowingly or unknowingly brought it into awareness in this discussion. It reminds me how much I appreciate my Mother for breathing for me when I was in her womb. From the first conscious breath that I took on my own, through every unconscious breath, to the conscious breath I am taking now. I think it is very relevant, even vitally relevant.

[Heathen's Guide]

Knowing the history of a word is vital in debate so that both understand what the other is actually saying.  Accepting ad hoc definitions as a contemporary convenience only muddles the discussion as it progresses.  You can both agree that "apple" means "Sin" if you wish to, but you're then going to have to define "Sin" so you're on the same page.  You can not escape the need to have clear definitions in theological debates. Etymology is the means by which we keep the points clear and understood by all parties.

Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

The original meaning is irrelevant to our purposes, since we're communicating with each other in the here and now, in common English, not in ancient Greek. Etymology is interesting, but not really illuminating in this discussion thus far.

[hvargas]

How will you define yourself outside of yourself? The closest things that you have to define yourself outside of yourself is the reflection which comes from looking at a mirror. Take that mirror away and you have nothing but another being defining you. You can then go a little further using your sense of touch and feeling yourself in order to define yourself but this method will not yield the desire results or definitions. The true is that you have many ways of defining yourself, by philosophical means or scientific means. Humans had made a " GOD " and in making such a God they created words that were not meant to be used to define humans. Humans can have " POWERS " but the powers of God are beyound human comprehensions. This was an original way for the " WEAK " to hope when the " STRONG " rule over them, " you are strong and I'm weak " BUT " there's someone who is " all-powerfull " and that someone is God, who will bring you down. When defining God is defining an ultimate " POWER ". Not so much beyond human comprehensions or imagination, is just giving all that humans can't do. Its impossible for you but is possible for God. When someone tells me that God can make me do this or that I say, " God can't make me smoke, nor eat meat, or used drugs, or cheat on my wife ". In other words God can't make me do that which I don't want to do and that means that there are things which are " IMPOSSIBLE " for GOD if it existed.

[Heathen's Guide]

You need some Niche and Plato.  You can define your self by virtue of experience.  Shut yourself off from the world and have no input, no vision or sound, and you still have your thoughts. ["A thing is defined by its form; I think, therefore I am."  That is, the being I know to be me is the creature that thinks these thoughts.  Ergo, I know I exist because these thoughts exist.]  

And, just for nothin'... you say your god is beyond human comprehension.  How then would you be able to know what it wants? If it is beyond comprehension, how can Christians know that God hates gays, or Muslims know that Mohamed was Allah's last messenger?  Claiming to "know" for certain the will and intent of a an unknowable is, at the least, contradictory.

How will you define yourself outside of yourself? The closest things that you have to define yourself outside of yourself is the reflection which comes from looking at a mirror. Take that mirror away and you have nothing but another being defining you. You can then go a little further using your sense of touch and feeling yourself in order to define yourself but this method will not yield the desire results or definitions. The true is that you have many ways of defining yourself, by philosophical means or scientific means. Humans had made a " GOD " and in making such a God they created words that were not meant to be used to define humans. Humans can have " POWERS " but the powers of God are beyond human comprehensions. This was an original way for the " WEAK " to hope when the " STRONG " rule over them, " you are strong and I'm weak " BUT " there's someone who is " all-powerfull " and that someone is God, who will bring you down. When defining God is defining an ultimate " POWER ". Not so much beyond human comprehensions or imagination, is just giving all that humans can't do. Its impossible for you but is possible for God. When someone tells me that God can make me do this or that I say, " God can't make me smoke, nor eat meat, or used drugs, or cheat on my wife ". In other words God can't make me do that which I don't want to do and that means that there are things which are " IMPOSSIBLE " for GOD if it existed.