GENIUS FORUMS

DaveH wrote:The religious use of "God" as a being is not new. It's been around for hundreds of years at least. The usage of "God" in the sense used by deism and pantheism and such (as all of reality) came along later. Religion had the word first. They are not corrupting it.

Interesting speculations on the evolution of the word 'God'. It says the English language got underway about 6,000 years ago. So it's fair to guess that the basic idea for the word "God" (maybe something like "khu" or "ghue") was invented to suit the ritual behaviour of asking help from a dead leader, about 4000 or so years ago. It was only a matter of time before God came to mean a mega-spirit that created useful things.

The Upanishads, made about 4,000 years ago, mention the supreme Self (Brahma, or Brh), which is the Universal Self, and creator of all things, having no form.

So, the meaning for God as a supreme creator might be about the same age as the meaning for Brahma as the supreme creator. The question is, were there any bright Aryans?

DHodges wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Are you going to continue to use the word "science" as it was previously used, or are you going to let the fundamentalists steal the word from you?

Yes, actually, I would let them have it. . . .
Words are not that precious. It's easy enough to make up a new one, or add qualifiers to the word to make the meaning clear: real science, old school science, empirically verified science, secular science.

No matter what words you want to use, the fundamentalists will be corrupting your words the very moment you begin to use them, and will be enshrining their definition of those words in the dictionary before you can blink an eyelid.

My attitude is that I'm not going let my use of language be dictated to. If you give them an inch they will take a mile.

The religious use of "God" as a being is not new. It's been around for hundreds of years at least.

Well, Jesus was around 2000 years ago, so that's where I get most of my own usage from.

Jesus in the gospel of Thomas:

It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the stone, & you will find me there.

I also follow the example of Meister Eckhart:

Eckhart wrote:All things are simply God to thee who seest only God in all things. Like one who looks long at the sun, he encounters the sun in whatever he afterwards looks at.

Eckhart wrote:The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same.

Eckhart wrote:God cannot know himself without me.

And the Avadhuta Gita:

Through the grace of God alone, the desire for nonduality arises in wise men.

There is no doubt that I am that God who is the Self of all, pure, indivisible,
like the sky, naturally stainless.

And Kierkegaard:

As the individual develops, God becomes for him more and more infinite, and he feels himself farther and farther from God.

And Ramakrishna:

As the lamp does not burn without oil, so man cannot live without God. God is even in the tiger, but we must not go and face the animal! So it is true that God dwells even in the most wicked of men, but it is not meant that we should associate with the wicked.

dejavu wrote:The causal nature of will does not make it illusory.

Well, if we're talking about the truthful understanding of will and its relationship to causal nature, your quite right. However, if you're talking about the common understanding of these concepts and their ramifications, you're quite wrong.

I take the highest meaning of the word will to imply consciousness.

I'm not sure what you mean by the highest meaning but my understanding of the word 'will' also implies consciousness. That isn't the point being debated however.

By this rule, we may as well then 'justifiably' speak figuratively of nothing.

The infinite process of causation as justification for the "will of god" (:D)

Erm, no. You're ignoring the context of what I said Zara, that being that the importance of the common understanding of the meaning of words pales into insignificance when compared with the importance of stimulating further understanding.

I love the thought of you attempting to impart the concept of cause and effect with such words to "someone who otherwise might not make those connections" lol

"How are babies made?"
"The will of god my son."

Why apologize for priestcraft?

Fallacy of the straw man via the fallacy of composition.

Discussing the intricacies of causal processes is not the same as discussing the causal process.

I've split the discussion of causality to Causality and Acausality