THE GOD INCONSISTENCY

File:Creation of the Sun and Moon face detail.jpg

Detail of Sistine Chapel fresco Creation of the Sun and Moon by Michelangelo (c. 1512), a well known example of the depiction of God the Father in Western art

.

I provided a couple of examples of inconsistencies in GENERAL INCONSISTENCIES on the subject of God as follows:

It is believed by many that, “God created the universe” and that “God is good.” An inconsistency comes about when one observes that there is evil in this world, and God cannot be the source of evil. One then rationalizes that Satan, who is created by God, is the source of evil. Satan is evil because, having a mind of his own, he disobeys God. One then wonders if it is bad to have a mind of one’s own. The inconsistency then falls apart when one looks more closely without rationalization.
It is believed by many that, “Man is created in the image of god.” Thus, God is believed to have a beingness with a form. Since beingness with form must exist in space, God must exist in space too. We then observe that space is part of this universe, and it must have been created when the universe was created. This means that, God did not have location in space, when he first created this universe. And so, God did not have beingness with form in the beginning. The inconsistency also falls apart when looked at more closely.

I find that looking at the inconsistencies on the subject of God can be very helpful as it may bring to view the basic inconsistency.

Attempt to look at the inconsistencies on the subject of God does not mean that one is denying God. I believe that there is God, but I also believe that as long as inconsistencies exist, a complete understanding of God is not there, and a complete understanding of “self” is also missing.

Saying, “I see no inconsistencies on the subject of God,” may simply point to an outright rejection of other views on God. This may mean that one is resisting looking at the inconsistencies on the subject of God. That would be a weakness.

A person, who can think for oneself, should be willing to look at all different views on God, and discuss them intelligently.

The Comment Section below is reserved for bringing into view all inconsistencies that have existed on God and look at them closely.

I hope this exercise would be worthwhile.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 7:58 AM

    I do understand that “God” is a hot button for many. My request would be to write your comments in the spirit of being helpful to one and all, and not to start a controversy.

  • Fred Pickhardt  On April 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

    Hi Vinay
    “An inconsistency comes about when one observes that there is evil in this world, and God cannot be the source of evil. One then rationalizes that Satan, who is created by God, is the source of evil.”

    I suspect, as I stated before, that we see God as perfection and humans as less than perfect. We live in a universe where entropy or disorder tends to increase unless energy is added to the system. This tendency appears to be an integral part of our space-time so that it is impossible to have a state of perfection within it. This tendency to move towards disorder and chaos, perhaps, is what we see as evil. Without this tendency there would be no change and nothing called free will.

    I would submit that Genesis 1 is a poetic description of how God created the world by moving step by step from chaos to order which is represented by the 6 days (steps) of creation.

    Fred

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

    Yes. Genesis 1 is a poetic description and one goes wrong when one considers it to be factual.

    So, according to you, there is tendency toward disorder, which we call entropy; and then there is also the tendency toward order, which we may call the divine will. These two tendencies are simply there. I know you have some more details, but I like this overview.

    Am I reading you correctly?

    The ancient description from the Vedas is as follows:

    The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

    This description is also poetic.

    .

    • Fred Pickhardt  On April 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM

      Thanks Vinay for that link.

      My opinion is that Genesis is saying the God created by his word by bringing order out of chaos which is why the account is done in orderly steps (days). I have read that the Hebrew words for evening and morning have their root from chaos and order. (The evening is dark and you can’t see (chaos) but in the morning there is light and you can see(order)).

      The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda seems to suggest also a beginning in chaos or at least in an unknown or empty condition. It differs in that it seems to suggest that there was some pre-existing state from which both the universe and the gods were created.

      “The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?”

      • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 1:01 PM

        Great! Fred. You have some wonderful insights to offer.

        It appears to me that Genesis also assumes a pre-existing state, and it is calling that state “God.” Rig Veda is assuming but not identifying that pre-existing state.

        What Rig Veda is referring to as “gods” is not the same concept as the “God” of Genesis. I think that the Vedic gods are the elemental forces in this universe. They have nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

        .

      • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM

        The Genesis account of day by day creation can be a metaphor for discreetness as each day a step was “done.”

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM

    So a basic inconsistency would be to consider something poetic to be factual.

    Is that correct?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM

      When it comes to understanding of all kinds, the deviation between your own base reality and my own base reality is only inconsistent for you and not me, and vice versa.

      To the degree that my own base reality is also wrapped up into my image of self; inconsistencies will be obfuscated. Maybe this is the major block to my seeing inconsistencies in my world. The correction of this may be what we mean when we say things like “out of body” (out of self?) and “exterior.” For me, this is what I mean when I say a word like “I am exterior.” I mean exterior to my ego. “Travelling to other locations out of body,” and “remote viewing” is to me another phenomena requiring another ability or maybe increased ability to be detached from self.

      As a person smooths their inconsistencies, maybe they become less ego, less attached and better able to continue the process of smoothing inconsistencies.

      • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM

        Yes, the option of “agreeing to disagree” is always there. However, let’s make a completely honest effort to sort out inconsistencies together. If that honesty is there then, I think, any discussion will be helpful to everyone involved.

        .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM

      Tricky word: factual

  • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM

    For me, God might refer to basic iteration formulae — something mathematical, some application running. That could be the physical universe ongoing.

    Corruptions or additive formulae (AKA considerations) supplied by myself create the friction that I refer to as inconsistencies in my own view and thinking.

    Possibly I have to continue the process of smoothing my own inconsistencies until they are smoothed “utterly.” At that moment, possibly I shall be able to see clearly the underlying iteration by “God.” At that moment, I believe that a new paradigm will be evoked, and I may then see things differently.*

    *1 Corinthians 13:12. The Holy Bible, King James Version
    For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

    • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM

      Yes, the discussion here may also help us understand the physical universe better. It may also help us understand our own selves better.

      I would suggest that if we use any special term, we should make some effort to explain it in simple terms to those who may not be familiar with it. A good example is how you explained the term “exterior.” Well done!

      Let’s discuss inconsistencies as they come up, with least amount of speculation as possible. It is understood that we cannot eliminate speculations entirely. The idea is to look and recognize what is actually there, and express it to the best of our ability.

      That reference to *1 Corinthians 13:12 is quite apt. 🙂 I simply hope that it will all come out well in the end.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

    Thank you Vinaire. I have hopes that fractal mathematics and the reiteration of random computer code (thus creating cellular automata) is a breakthrough area for understanding quantum physics.

    In this mathematical language might be keys to realize the ongoing iteration and evolution and also random motion in a world currently defined by nothing more than rank superstition.

    You probably are familiar with the works of Stephen Wolfram, but he may have proved that very simple, extremely simple code can be at the root of extremely complex systems which contain apparent randomization.

    These simple code can be “responsible” (at the root of) the explosive diversity that we see around us. But can dynamics also be attributed to this simple code? Energy increases and decreases discreetly, this we know.

    It has been decades since I stopped wondering about God’s goodness or badness. Now I ask, Do we need God to complete the equation and understand how the primal forces of this universe act intelligently? Have I even asked an intelligent question? or simply revealed one more layer of my superstition?

    • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 8:14 PM

      I believe like you do that, at the bottom of the rabbit hole, things are really simple; but that simplicity is “out of the box” type simplicity. That the rabbit hole is bottomless is only a seeming appearance.

      Fractal mathematics does supply a parallel to this rabbit hole, because it is very simple at its core but it can rapidly grow into the most complex scenario possible.

      My conjecture is that the word “God” is simply a place holder for much that we don’t understand. God is what we call in Algebra, an unknown in the equation.

      Shall we start with the inconsistencies referenced in the OP (opening post), and determine what God is not!

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM

        Yes, we can do that. Or can we? For religious purposes, I might call myself an animist. I am seeing God in everything. Therefore, for me the process might better be “What is God ‘not?’ ”

        I write this humorously because it seems quite a mistake to me to take myself too seriously. I’m not pushing any idea, but if I can see inconsistency anywhere, then to be fair to the natural uncoiling of my mind, I sometimes feel like starting right there.

        I won’t push an ideology. However, to propose to “wring God out” of things when I don’t know what that is (not) seems presumptious of me. It is equally possible for me to see the primal Nature of things in all things. Since I won’t arrive at something which is nothing through a process, then the neti neti of God feels finished as I begin.

      • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

        I believe that it is profitable to look at the inconsistency totally honestly and state what is it that resolves the inconsistency for one. One doesn’t have to do this if one doesn’t want to.

        Pushing ideology, in my opinion, may not provide anything new. But pointing out inconsistencies in an ideology may.

        Instead of defending an ideology, one should focus on explaining that inconsistency.

        .

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 7:51 PM

    Let me introduce Fred and Chris to each other.

    Chris has been exposed to Scientology, but I think Chris has moved beyond Scientology now that he is quoting from the Bible.

    Fred’s background is being a weather man. He is a scientist. I don’t think Fred has ever been exposed to Scientology.

    Well, I may not be accurate here, so, Chris and Fred, please introduce yourself more fully if you wish. Thanks!

    .

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM

      hahaha You are very charming Vinaire. Hi Fred. Nice to blog with you at Vinaire’s.

      However, like you Vinaire and your Hindu upbringing, I had a thorough Christian upbringing. Several denominations of Christian disciplines. Back then, I still entertained the idea of an anthropomorphic God. After rejecting the idea of a seminary education, I moved beyond this to social gurus, then to Scientology. The teachings remain and now I often relate things that I think I’ve learned to some aspect my Christian teachings as well as years of Scientology teachings.

      • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

        That’s interesting. I was not aware of your thorough grounding in Christianity. This discussion on God is going to be very interesting, because God is a word introduced by Christianity. In Judaism, the word is Jehovah and not God. In Islam the word is Allah.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM

          I will enjoy this discussion tomorrow. Now it is time for me to turn off my laptop and sit with my wife and watch a movie! Thank you for the stimulation!

      • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 8:50 PM

        Enjoy! See you tomorrow. Good night!

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On April 28, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    Vinaire: “I believe like you do that, at the bottom of the rabbit hole, things are really simple; but that simplicity is “out of the box” type simplicity. That the rabbit hole is bottomless is only a seeming appearance.”

    Chris: Ah! Vinaire, I have found out the nuclear engineer is a romantic-spiritualist at heart! You believe not only in the red pill but in the possibility of pills! I love it.

    • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM

      Oh! I enjoyed MATRIX very much. I can still watch it again and enjoy it thoroughly.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 28, 2012 at 8:35 PM

    Michelangelo’s God (in the OP) looks like quite a brainy chap.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 12:55 AM

      Brainy? To me he looks like my very serious and scowling father.

      • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 1:05 AM

        So in that respect, I think Michelangelo’s image hit the mark. He probably looks like Michelangelo’s very serious and scowling father as well.

        *Following is the model Christian prayer as taught by
        Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, in his famous “Sermon on the Mount” :
        “Our Father, who art in heaven,
        hallowed be thy name.
        Thy kingdom come, thy will be done
        on earth, as it is in heaven.
        Give us this day, our daily bread,
        and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
        Lead us not into temptation,
        but deliver us from evil.
        For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.”

        *Matthew ch 6 verses 9-13.

      • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 5:26 AM

        To me he looks troubled about the future. He is computing for sure instead of simply looking. He is probably wondering if he has done the right thing, by outdoing himself.

        If you let others be what they are with no thought of controlling them (give them total freedom) then you can never predict the outcome. That can be very troubling for somebody who feels the responsibility for it.

        Here God seems to be allowing total freedom and troubled by it at the same time. We do that with our children.

        The question is where does the ultimate responsibility lie?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 7:49 AM

          It lies within the subset of free will. Is there such a subset?

      • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM

        The struggle seems to be between freedom and need for harmony.

        Freedom allows one to act the way one wants. But when one is part of a group then harmony among parts is essential for the group to act the way it wants. Thus, freedom of the whole depends on harmony among its parts.

        I would say that the ultimate responsibility lies within the state of harmony among parts, so that the whole can act with freedom.

        This appiles to body and its cells as well. It is a fractal.

        .

      • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 4:54 AM

        Based on this principle, it seems that we shall have no freedom as a culture, or as a society, or as a nation, unless we are in harmony with each other.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 6:58 AM

          To the degree that I have followed this (harmony), I have been having increasing success as a father and husband.

      • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 7:02 AM

        Wonderful. Does that mean God is a brainy chap after all! 🙂

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 7:18 AM

          haha, well, yes. My father was considered a smart man who knew things. He was mechanical and thoroughly grounded in the skilled trades. He was able to do for us many things that others could only hope to hire.

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2012 at 6:03 AM

    Here is another inconsistency that I see.

    When God is postulated as the Ultimate Cause, then one gets sort of an answer and stops looking closely at what conditions might have existed prior to creation.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

      Vinaire: “When God is postulated as the Ultimate Cause, then one gets sort of an answer and stops looking closely at what conditions might have existed prior to creation.”

      Chris: Yes, it is a thought stopper. Worse, I simply stop looking for underlying causes at all. Science shows there are underlying causes for things, and underlying causes for the underlying causes. Perhaps this is a ceaseless fractal iteration?

      • Fred Pickhardt  On April 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

        Or perhaps it’s turtles all the way down!

      • vinaire  On April 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

        Yes, that was the old-fashioned fractal.

        .

      • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

        I should have said, “Turtles all the way down is perhaps an ancient way of referring to fractals.”

  • vinaire  On April 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM

    Apparently, the Old Testament is a version of Jewish Torah and some differences might exist. I would like to study the concept of Jehovah and compare it with the concept of God.

    Somebody pointed out to the Hebrew Bible Timeline here:

    Hebrew Bible: Timeline

    .

    • Fred Pickhardt  On April 30, 2012 at 7:12 AM

      The most ancient Hebrew word for “god” is “El” was originally written with two pictographic letters, one being an ox head (the letter Aleph) land the other a shepherd staff (Lamed), The ox head represented strength and the staff, authority.

      Two source links:
      http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html

      http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_introduction.html

      • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 8:30 AM

        Thanks, Fred. It seems that the word “El” is a good point to start looking at the original concept of God. When I went to the site you referred to, the first thing that I saw was the concept of “Might, Strength, power”, and next the idea of true and false god.

        This points to some kind of struggle among different factions of people to attain supremacy and gain control. Obviously, the struggle is of man against man, intelligence against intelligence, ideas against ideas.

        God appears to be the primary weapon in the ideas department. If one could prove the gods of other factions false, and one’s own God true then one’s tribe could gain supremacy and control. It seems to me that it was a stuggle to demonstarte who had most intelligence and the wherewithal to survive. And this intelligence and wherewithal was symbolized by one’s concept of God.

        Thus, the original concept of God seems to be intimately tied with a group intelligence and might to survive against any and all odds. Does this sound right so far?

        .

      • Fred Pickhardt  On April 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

        Vinay, There is a famous account of my god is stronger than your god in the Hewbrew Old Testament found in 1 Kings Chapter 18 (starts at verse 16).

        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&version=NIV

        • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM

          That’s a good reference Fred.

          The Old Testament is full of good descriptions of the nature and general character of God Jehovah. None better than the Book of Job (sounds like jobe with silent e). It is a short story, easy to sit through in single read and gives a great insight to the reasons for man’s suffering, and for God’s capricious and mean spirited nature. It is for me, the story of how might makes right, especially where God is concerned and all we may be expected to do is bow down before “him” , worship God, and hope we don’t get on his bad side. It is like KSW with examples of how not even following the rules gets you off the hook. To soften the very cruel and capriciousness nature attributed to God, this story polishes off the yarn with a final paragraph where God magnanimously restores Job to his previous position of greatness (disregarding and neither apologizing for God’s previous malicious destruction of everyone and everything important to Job and motivated only by an ego to best the Devil.)

          http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm (one of many places you can read it)

      • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

        The concept of God seems to have come about as the provider of inspiration to prophets. So, the abstract sense of God seems to be connected with inspiration. The whole function of inspiration seems to be to bring about positive change in the society. What these prophets did with that inspiration is left for history to judge.

        proph·et
        noun
        1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
        2. (in the Old Testament)
        a. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
        b. ( often initial capital letter ) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
        c. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
        d. a person who practices divination.
        3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
        4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
        5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 7:48 AM

          Of course! It is the very first postulate that God formed man from dust and breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living being.

      • Fred Pickhardt  On April 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

        Chris, Job begins with an interesting passage which seems to suggest that there is some type of heavenly council meeting where the sons of God and Satan have been called to attend. I wonder if these are the same sons of God from Genesis 6 just before the flood story?

        JOB 1:6-7
        “6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

        • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM

          hehe yes. Probably.

          God said to Satan, ” Get a load of my man Job there. Have you ever seen anyone so good as him?”

          Satan replied, “mmmyeh, not so much… If you even picked on him a little bit he would turn against you.”

          So God said, “Okay smartypants. I’ll betcha. Do your worst, you’ll see.” And so Satan destroyed Job to within an inch of his life taking everything and everyone he held dear and so God won the bet.

          Oh yeah, and then God gave back everything that Job had lost and all was well that ended well.

    • Fred Pickhardt  On May 1, 2012 at 7:03 AM

      Chris, I guess the ultimate my god is better than your god comes to us via Moses in Exodus.

  • Chris Thompson  On April 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    You have given me an idea to lump God and The Unknowable together and to visualize a paradox. In this paradox, God-thought stops me from looking while the Unknowable propagates my thoughts ceaselessly in an effort to see what lies after just one more iteration. This is chasing a sunbeam which only exceeding the speed of light will catch.

    If I am correct to postulate a Great Fractal Metaphor (GFM), then neti neti is that endless seeking of the tip of the infinite fractal iceberg. Science seems to be very far, maybe infinitely far from seeing the point of creation, if I am correct about this fractal metaphor. Science, being within physics, may be doomed to remain within physics. It must be admitted that Unknowable is a consideration only — a fantasy. This is the flip-side of the god-coin.

    This might be the paradox I have been searching for. On the unknowable side, neti neti has me searching endlessly for what can never be found: The tip of the fractal iceberg.

    Conversely on the God side, I give up looking before knowing all I can know.

    Knowing is what occurs as inconsistencies are leveled. Not knowing is what occurs when inconsistencies are presented. Does this seem like the squirrel wheel and an unacceptable inconsistency to you? It does to me and thus gives me to understand that understanding must lie elsewhere, on a different vector.

    • vinaire  On April 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

      Yes, God is a thought stopper, and Unknowable (Neti, Neti) is a carrot that encourages you to keep looking. The saving grace is that you’ll know when you have reached the plateau of looking.

      You may then only have an inconsistency to goad you forward. When there is no inconsistency then there is no need for looking.

      As far as Science goes it has to expand its scope. See

      THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES

      To me, physical and spiritual are two aspects of a much broader system. Science should now aim at this broader system.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On April 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

        That was a good way of putting it. “Science should now aim at this broader system.”

        Yet, I am feeling the splinter in my mind and it is festering. “The saving grace is that you’ll know when you have reached that plateau of looking.” Nothing I have seen leads me to think that there is a plateau except that we consider there is one and once again, stop looking. I am feeling particularly peeved about this.

      • vinaire  On April 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

        I would not expect anything.

        What happens, happens.

        .

      • vinaire  On April 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        I am in touch with a researcher who is working on her doctoral thesis in the area of consciousness. The abstract of her recent paper is as follows:

        Abstract: Emerging understanding in sciences is pointing to our biology as the root for personal consciousness. Knowing happens in the experience of the whole being. This brings into question the scientific method where the scientist, as an independent observer, can gain an objective understanding of the world being investigated. In fact, reality is perceived and understood through an embodied cognition that involves the whole being, not independent of it. As such, the process of deep knowing is an arduous journey of self-actualization when one expands consciousness to experience more of the real world. This way of knowing is at the heart of wisdoms of revered Chinese masters Lao-Tzi and Confucius.

        You may read up on “embodied cognition” in Wikipedia here:

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

        This is in agreement with my view that spiritual and physical are different aspects of a single system.

        .

      • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 9:35 AM

        Chris, it seems that this sub-topic is very important and it is proper if we take it up on the following thread:

        THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES

        If you don’t mind I would like to move this conversation there. So, click on the above link. Thanks.

        I am also putting this link in the section Updates & Additions

  • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 7:55 AM

    I was reading John Locke again and re-realizing that we cannot prove there is a RWOT.

    • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 10:00 AM

      From Wikipedia:

      “Locke’s theory of mind is often cited as the origin of modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau and Kant. Locke was the first to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.”

      From the current theory of embodied cognition it appears that the postulate, “the mind is a blank slate or tabula rasa” would be falsified.

      About John Locke and falsifying the existence of RWOT let’s talk more about it here.

      THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES

      Thanks.

  • Chris Thompson  On April 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM

    Neti neti seems to be not so much a carrot but an ongoing and eternal make-wrong for it is easy to logical arrive where the process takes you. Spinning into an ever tightening vortex of smaller and yet smaller field of space-time to choose from, “In the beginning and forever the answer is no.”

    • vinaire  On April 30, 2012 at 1:31 PM

      All that “neti, neti” is saying, in my opinion, is that the answer is not in the dimension in which this universe exists. You need to study the Vedic texts to get the full menaing of it.

      Neti, neti = The answer is beyond consideration.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM

        We seem to have conflict here — An inconsistency. Not between us, but between the sense that there are answers “outside what can be made known” to questions about “what is known.”

        I am willing for there to be anything and nothing. However, because I have not thoroughly examined the physical universe, see no reason to postulate an existence “outside” that realm. At this point, I cannot define “outside physical,” especially in view of our premise that spiritual and physical are within the universe.

        If there are spiritual answers to physical questions, then does it follow that there are unknowable answers to spiritual questions?

        BTW, my own reversal of the above is also my definition of addiction: “When a person repeatedly attempts to solve a spiritual problem with a physical solution, then the result is addiction.”

      • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 7:43 AM

        There is a beautiful paradox in this waiting for us to give it words. When we do, it might lead to a wonderful revelation.

      • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

        I don’t think one can talk about it in terms of answers “outside what can be made known.” If one realizes there are no questions then one won’t be looking for answers.

        Here is how I see it. There is nothing outside or inside. There is simply disharmony or inconsistencies. When all inconsistencies have disappeared due to realignment of considerations, there would be complete harmony. One may then become fully aware of the nature of the fractal from the seed to whatever degree the fractal has executed itself.

        In other words, one may become fully aware of that fractal’s algorithm (divine principle) itself. One may then be face to face with nature (divine).

        .

        • Anonymous  On May 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

          Now we are getting somewhere. I agree totally and take it one further in the same direction. The seeds of iteration are planted by God. God is the placeholder. I see God as the multidimensional being, not outside the universe, but outside myself. I think gods iterate and are iterated the same as everything else. And on the other side of the seed iteration? The possibility of more iteration.

          Then face to face, we will know even as we also are known. I have been to this place in auditing and it seems to at first be a void. Then the ego dissolves and it is no longer a place of nothing but a place of every potential.

          “”

  • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 1:26 PM

    Hello Anonymous, I see God as the Black Box about which I have no clue. I don’t think I am bold enough to assume God to be a being in man’s image.

    I simply have no clue. Sorry!

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM

      Vinaire, that Anonymous is me and sent from my smartphone. Somehow it didn’t log me on or stripped my ID or something…

  • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    from Holy Bible, King James:
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Obviously mis-translated — maybe many times. It should read, “Man was created from God’s image of man.” Now it makes better sense.

    “My garage was created from my own image of my garage.” Blueprints were drawn to match my own image, then materials and construction work began to duplicate the image of my garage which I envisioned.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM

      Genesis chap 1: verse 27.

    • fredwx  On May 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      Chris – I think you are correct. Here is a ref that says the word create (bara) means to fill and image means an outline of a shadow:

      en 1:27And Elohiym filled (bara) the man with his image,
      with his image he filled (bara) him, male and
      female he filled (bara) them.

      “The Hebrew word translated as “image” above is Mlu tselem
      [H:6754] meaning an outline of a shadow, a representation or image
      of the original. Once God “formed” the man, he filled him up
      with a representation of himself, and according to this verse, his
      image is “male” and “female.” We are comfortable calling God a
      “he” and assigning masculine attributes to him but the fact is, he
      is male and female, not in appearance, but in function.”

      http://thelivingwords.ancient-hebrew.org/creation.pdf

  • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM

    It is not God who looks like man, but man who looks like what God envisioned. No, you will not meet up with God like Michelangelo’s painting. . . Unless you envision it.

  • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    If you envision it, then you will meet God in your own image.

    • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 5:52 PM

      That indicates! 🙂

      • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

        Yayyy! I find it so pleasing when our minds meet. Maybe because we are not compelled to agree, so when we do it is a special event.

      • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 5:27 AM

        Yes, one sees God as one conceptualizes it.

        Does God exist outside of one’s conceptualization?

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM

    If you are an ultra-left, female, chauvinist, then you will meet a god-like Amazonian created in HER image. After all, this is reality. It’s one big Truman show, except none of the cast are in on the scam.

  • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    The OP (opening post) states:

    I find that looking at the inconsistencies on the subject of God can be very helpful as it may bring to view the basic inconsistency described in KHTK 6A.

    I wonder why the starting point of existence is looked upon as a BEING called GOD. When I look more closely at this starting point all I see is nothing and then something. Something simply appears. That is all I see. I can assume hell of a lot of other things about what transpires at this starting point; but all I see is “awareness of something.” Prior to this point, probably, there was not even awareness.

    All I see is the birth of beingness because something just comes to be. It could also be the birth of me as awareness. It all happens at that starting point. Have you ever been under anesthesia? How was it coming out of a deep unconsciousness?

    So, there is beingness and awareness appearing at this starting point. It is only after beingness and awareness have come about that there is curiosity about how did it all happen. To explain this there might be a visualization of the cause (using the same process), and then that cause may be conceived as a BEING called GOD. It is a fractal.

    So, I doubt if it is a BEING that is at the root of this fractal. At this point I have no clue of what that ultimate cause (seed) might be. Maybe I should not use the verb “be” for that seed. It has to be beyond existence.

    So, for me thinking of the ultimate cause (seed) as a BEING called GOD is an inconsistency.

    Maybe there is no ultimate cause, and the whole thing is just circular like a snake eating its tail (or puking itself out). But then one wonders how that snake came to be in the first place. So, it is best to simply trust what one sees.

    THINGS JUST APPEAR AND THEN ONE VISUALIZES THE CAUSE.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 9:52 PM

      I don’t really see it that way. I conceptualize, then I make them appear.

    • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 5:10 AM

      I see the fractal as “being” (verb). All the time something or the other is being, based on something that was being earlier.

      So, “cause” is being, based on the puzzle how something else is being.

      That “puzzle” has itself come into being.

      That concept of “puzzle” had come into being.

      The conceptualization of that concept had come into being.

      There is no end to this chain of beingness. So, the fractal is,

      Something is being, based on something else that is being,

      God as a Being is somewhere on this merry-go-round.

      .

      • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM

        The basic concept of BEING, such as God, is that which has come into being.

        .

        • Fred Pickhardt  On May 2, 2012 at 9:19 AM

          In Exodus Moses talks to God in the form of a burning bush. God tells Moses that he must go to Egypt to free his people and Moses asks God if they ask me your name, what should I tell them? God answers “I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh. “ehyeh” comes from the word “Hayah” which means to exist.

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

        • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 9:10 PM

          Thanks, Fred. That is a good reference.

          I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh …) is a common English translation … of the response God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means “existed” or “was” in Hebrew; “ehyeh” is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as “I will be” (or “I shall be”), for example, at Exodus 3:12. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as “I Will Be What I Will Be”, with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, this phrase is rendered as I am that I am.”

          To me YHWH has the following underlying meaning:
          Beingness, or identity, depends upon the thought at that moment.

          Now this is a very powerful, philosophical statement.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 2, 2012 at 9:34 PM

          The powerful statement to me is the affirmation appositive to neti neti. “I AM THAT I AM” it’s apparent opposition is in apposition to “neither this nor that.” These are both useful looks and I feel should be equally weighted.

          This perpetual negation of beingness that we put ourselves through is unbalanced.

        • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM

          To me both of these statements are the same.

          Neti, neti = When there is no thought there is no beingness.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 2, 2012 at 9:48 PM

          They seem to be reverse vectors on the same coin.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM

        That’s a good way of putting it — easy to follow.

        Now what about this action, this volition, this desire to identify? We should explore that fine edge of identification.

        • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM

          Yes, that is a good sub-topic to investigate.

          .

  • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    Check this out:

    The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

    .

  • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 2, 2012 at 10:48 PM

    God says in the bible: ” I am who is “, this is my spanish translation. Describes a being existing without adjectives, just the purity of being. And the creation of man is similar to him in potential to be without temporary adjectives, as I see it, so there is spiritual evolution. About the perception of layers of inconsistencies on God, I see this process as peeling off layers of an onion but when you reach the center you will not find the creator of this reality ( which is a seed ), so, may be not all the reality on God will ever be available for us to know, here comes the divine revelation to know the unavailable data on him and leading to spiritual growing. Revelation ocurrs when there is faith on the existence of this reality called God as the communication bridge.imho.

    • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 5:03 AM

      Unknowable, hmmm…

      .

      • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM

        Vinay, yes, a being existing without adjectives is something Unknowable, may be my God is not very different from your Unknowable.

        • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

          If God is unknowable, how can you tell it is a being? How can you tell it is existing (being)?

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

          Vinay, it is a matter of extrapolation. If you see shadows, then there needs to be a source of light, if you see effects then you know there are causes, if you see bad …… this is the dichotomy of existence and living things at work. So if there are persons known, like you and me, there are unknown persons; if there are weak persons then, there are powerful persons in a gradient scale up to the infinite……. 🙂 . Dichotomies, Vinay, this is the key to solve any problem, and the use of extrapolation. I will give you an example of extrapolation more practical: a person dives in the ocean and each milimeter he dives deeper the water presure is more and more; ok, this is a sequence where you can make a prediction with certainty. The existence and nature of God is discovered that way. And even more, you will eventually find that the so called ” faith in God ” is an advance over this process. So if you and me exist, then an upper gradient of persons should exist.

        • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM

          The method of extrapolation keeps one within the universe, and one simply sees another aspect of the universe.

          One cannot arrive at God this way, IMHO. One may believe it is God, but one may simply be looking at some other aspect of the physical universe.

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 4, 2012 at 9:59 AM

          Vinay, you say “The method of extrapolation keeps one within the universe, and one simply sees another aspect of the universe. ” It seems to me like an assumption from you. To me, extrapolation is another way to look at the existence and discover and predict new things. If this method don´t get me out of the universe or lets me arrive at God is something I am currently investigating. But in the process, I am confident this will bring a better social enviroment 🙂 .

        • vinaire  On May 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM

          When you say two plus two is four, you are still operating in the dimension of numbers.

          So when you take a bunch of considerations and extrapolate from those to come up with a new consideration, you are still operating in the dimension of considerations. And that is the dimension of the MEST universe.

          The creator of this universe has to be beyond consideration because it cannot be part of this universe.

          The idea, “God is BEING” is inconsistent because any being, or anything being, has to be part of this universe per the simple fact that it is existing.

          “God is being” or “God is a BEING” is an inconsistency in my opinion.

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

          Vinay, ok, I am interested in knowing from you what is your description of the nirvana dimension, just to have a kind of goal towards to work. In the other side if there are no existing beings outside this universe, I guess it would be very lonesome any experience of such condition

        • vinaire  On May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

          Rafael: “I guess it would be very lonesome any experience of such condition.”

          What you are doing here is visualizing and not looking. So, what you’ll see is your visualization and not what is actually there.

          The KHTK approach is to simply look at inconsistencies more and more closely until they dissolve. You keep on doing this without expecting anything. That is all. You’ll know the destination when you’ll get there. Otherwise, all you have is just a visualization of the destination.

          So the goal in KHTK is looking at inconsistencies as they come up until they dissolve.

          I can give you my description of the Nirvana dimension, but it may not necessarily be true for you. You have to discover it for yourself. Anyway, here it goes.

          WHAT IS NIRVANA?

          I hope you like it. If you see any inconsistencies, then please let me know.

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 4, 2012 at 8:15 PM

          Vinay, I Have read your essay on nirvana which states: ” in nirvana, beingness and considerations are continually being created and dissolved “. To me it seems like an as-is of the existence in each unit of creation of it. Very interesting.

        • vinaire  On May 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM

          Great! As I see, there is complete absence of fixations in Nirvana.

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM

          Vinay, I guess it needs to be felt by someone nowadays just to get this state completely described ( almost scientifically ) so as to start the real explosion of Bhuddas and Bodhisattvas. thanks for your contribution.

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 5, 2012 at 6:01 PM

          Vinay, I liked the part of ” know for yourselves ” from the Buddha advice. Useful info !

  • vinaire  On May 7, 2012 at 5:00 AM

    God is unknowable. Anything said to describe God (that God is a being, cause, etc.) is an inconsistency, including the first statement above (if taken strictly logically).

    .

    • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM

      Vinay, you say: ” The statement God is unknowable is an inconsistency, too. (if taken strictly logically).” So the way to nirvana goes along the line of feelings and not by the reasons.

      • vinaire  On May 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        You may be quite right. I do find logic to be inadequate.

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On May 7, 2012 at 7:36 AM

    Hammering the unknowable repeatedly creates the sense of hardening. A paradox tries to emerge around the word “know.” Maybe taking a look at this will be useful? Hints: KHTK both “Fractal” and “Reverse vector.”

    • vinaire  On May 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM

      How do you define “know”?

      To me the ultimate state would be lack of inconsistencies. When there are no inconsistencies then there is nothing to know really. This state may be called “unknowable.”

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM

        I use know as in make manifest.

        • vinaire  On May 7, 2012 at 6:29 PM

          Well, one can know only what is manifested. One cannot know what is not yet manifested, though one may speculate about that. Then one would know only those speculations.

          “Making manifest” would be visualizing, speculating, creating, etc. Knowing would then follow.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 8, 2012 at 10:37 AM

          Round and round… this inconsistency should be a clue.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

          Hint: Look to Godel’s work. There is this paradox exploited there. The answer becomes obvious but we have to turn loose some fixed ideas if you can believe good science, genius mathematics, and dispassionate looking.

    • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM

      learn to know or learn to not know, there is the dilemma:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma

      • vinaire  On May 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM

        Lack of inconsistencies does not mean that one doesn’t know. It simply means that what one knows has no inconsistencies. I don’t see any dilemma here.

        Drive to know seem to come from inconsistencies. These inconsistencies, when they exist in one’s ground reality, are excited by looking. If no inconsistencies are excited then there is nothing to sort out and know.

        One’s visualization may emerge from that ground reality as a creative endeavor. Here we have effortless art. New realities are created consistent with one’s ground reality. Wonderful emotions arise as a result. One is continually in a state of ecstasy. There is no need for knowing. There is simply pure creativity.

        Not knowing is not the same thing as forgetting. To me, not knowing would be getting rid of inconsistencies. One looks at inconsistencies more closely until the out-of-alignment pieces start to fall into place.

        So, know and not know seems to go hand in hand. New realizations blow off confusions. That is know and not know happening together.

        This is how I see it. It may not be how somebody else sees it.

        .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 7, 2012 at 6:05 PM

          Vinay, so wishing to learn – let’s say- chemistry, would be a drive to grow one’s own ground reality, even if in the process new inconsistencies appear to be handled so as to be in need of level them up to a point of not know ( per your earlier definition )

        • vinaire  On May 7, 2012 at 6:25 PM

          Good point. I would say that Chemistry could be a path taken to resolve some basic inconsistency. Here we are applying the scientific method to postulate an explanation and then seeing how it pans out, and then keep on going using this method.

          So, yes, the natural desire to resolve inconsistencies may lead to postulation and visualization of what may develop into different subjects. These subjects would actually be paths taken to resolve some basic inconsistency.

          The wish to learn Chemistry would then be to try out the path of Chemistry to resolve some basic inconsistency. One is following up on what others have already visualized on this path until one gets to the point where one is blazing the trail oneself.

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 7, 2012 at 10:04 PM

          Vinay, so the scientific method applied to different sciences would actually be paths taken to resolve some basic inconsistency, a way of looking thru the mind, as I understand it. My be the inconsistency in the use of science and reason could be the acceptance by the observer of any external influence as an interpretation of his observations ( aceptance of uninspected sugestions coming from someone else)

        • vinaire  On May 8, 2012 at 4:59 AM

          That’s an interesting view. There is appearance, and one is trying to understand what underlies that appearance through science.

          What you seem to be saying is that there is inconsistency in the use of science and reasoning itself, and that inconsistency is probably coming from acceptance by the observer of uninspected suggestions coming from someone else.

          Well, one’s observation is always influenced by what one is taking for granted. It is also influenced by what one is assuming even knowingly. That is called a conjecture in the application of the scientific method. A conjecture is then falsified or not.

          “KHTK looking” is the way to ferret out considerations that one is operating on knowingly or unknowingly.

          .

        • Rafael Sánchez Núñez  On May 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM

          Vinay, you say: “There is appearance, and one is trying to understand what underlies that appearance through science “. Yes, the inconsistency of such appearance is leveled not accepting false sugestions, i.e. was Louis Pasteur, a French chemist and microbiologist not accepting the spontaneous generation theory of his time and instead discovered biogenesis (Omne vivum ex vivo “all life is from life”) with medicine and industrial aplications.

  • vinaire  On June 1, 2012 at 6:27 PM

    I am reading Isaac Asimov’s ‘Forward the Foundation.’ Here is a quote from it:

    “Oh, supernatural influences. Why didn’t you say so? No, I don’t believe in that sort of thing. By definition, something is supernatural if it exists outside the laws of nature and nothing exists outside the laws of nature. Are you turning into a mystic?”

    I quite agree with the above.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: