Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Ananta Sesa

God unlimitedly complex?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

Well, I'm sure that words and language and logic are ultimately inappropriate to describe the relation between Krishna and impersonal Brahman, because it would always suggest something that cannot be proven within the particular applied formalism. However (as you acknowledged), the Brahman effulgence is within the range of logical understanding, and (as I acknowledged) Krishna is not. So there is a fundamental ontological difference between Brahman and Krishna. Whatever this is, cannot be formally described. But for all practical purposes, you may say: Krishna is the basis or foundation or rest of Brahman. I no longer have a serious problem with that.. :)

 

Brahman is not within the range of logic either. But logic can indicate or point to the reality. Words are not totally useless. Fir instance we can say God is unlimited. We may not be able to fully comprehend what unlimited is but we do know it means without limitations.

 

Same with basis. I only mentioned it because you did right above. Don't worry I won't bug you any more over it.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When there`s an agreement it means it`s a closed deal. That both have reached a consensus and approval on a subject discussed either lengthily or briefly. That`s why there are threads losing steam earlier because all who participated in the exchange agreed with no more questions asked from the thread starter. However, there are threads that go the distance because the participants find interest in the subject being presented.

 

When a thread appears animated members and guests are driven to visit and share their own or group views in order to agree or disagree. If the majority agrees or disagrees then there`s no point in continuing the discussion. The thread is closed UNLESS THERE`S A VALID DISSENTING OIPINON to keep it open. Why is the game of Golf only have 18 holes? It`s to make sure that players won`t find other holes to sink their balls into.

 

Interesting but I fail to see how it relates to anything I said. You'll have to talk golf with gHari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Brahman is not within the range of logic either. But logic can indicate or point to the reality.

...

 

Then what exactly did you acknowledge here:

 

 

Well yes. That is what some scientists have come to understand apparently through their own investigations and methods.

 

..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist viewpost.gif

Brahman is not within the range of logic either. But logic can indicate or point to the reality.

...

Then what exactly did you acknowledge here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist viewpost.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by primate

Theist, do you think the Brahman effulgence can be logically understood as the basis of our manifest material universe?

Well yes. That is what some scientists have come to understand apparently through their own investigations and methods.

..?

 

 

Yes I can see where I could have worded that better. What I meant to say was that through scientificly logic and theories some scientists have come to understand that there must be some great unified field of universal energy and that this energy is the immediate cause of the material manifestation. Not that we can actually understand the Brahman through logic but we can understand that the Brahman exists.

 

Sorry for the confusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes I can see where I could have worded that better. What I meant to say was that through scientificly logic and theories some scientists have come to understand that there must be some great unified field of universal energy and that this energy is the immediate cause of the material manifestation. Not that we can actually understand the Brahman through logic but we can understand that the Brahman exists.

 

Sorry for the confusion

Okay, that's almost the same as acknowledging that Brahman can be logically understood, whereas Krishna can't. I think I understand what you mean..

 

BTW, a strict ontological (and epistemological) separation between Brahman and Krishna, based on what we can logically understand and what not, might be an interesting philosophical proposition.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think you know my approach to the issue by now. I accept the Sun and sunshine example as giving the gist of the situation and the rest will have to come by revelation from Krishna in the future if I am so fortunate.

 

I don't feel more words and concepts will bring any new enlightenment on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting but I fail to see how it relates to anything I said. You'll have to talk golf with gHari.

 

 

IN GOlf, if hole no. 1(Link 40) was this statement from you, Theist: WE WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE Melvin. It took me 10 strokes to hole no. 2(Link 50). While it took you only 2 strokes to hole no.3(Link 52). In answering this link, it will perhaps take me 5 strokes to hole no. 4(Link 57) so on and so forth.

 

We will have to agree, therefore, to finish whatever we have discussed here in this thread on hole no. 18. Whoever has the number of strokes taken loses. Otherwise, the argument will never end. Unless, of course, we have to agree to disagree from now on. That would be a perpetual check in the game of chess.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. Ultimately the rules are self-sufficient. They don’t need you to apply them. You can use a computer to calculate the answer for you. Then you would still have the answer or the knowledge, but without (necessarily) knowing the rules.

 

Now I wont agree on that.When you use a calculator your not sovling directly solving 2+2=4 but calculator is doing a lot of the work.

The calcultor has the knowledge.

 

Then you would still have the answer or the knowledge, but without (necessarily) knowing the rules.

 

If you want to solve something yourself then you must know the rules isnt it.

 

 

No. What Peirce says here, is that a correct application of the rules of mathematics will necessarily lead to a true conclusion or true knowledge. This implies that the rules are leading. Thus, logic precedes knowledge..

Ill give you a maths problem.You know the rules.

On the basis of these rules youll apply logic to solve it.And the answer is again knowledge as youve said as logic precedes knowledge.

Yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Great have you accepted the word meaningWaht does the word mean acording to you.prathishtaa

 

I wish someday we can play mental golf, Sant. You and I with Visnu who carries a club. Oh how I just love to swing this driver club and whoOp! Propel that golf ball way up in the sky and cloOp! Score a hole in one!

 

Wanna play 8 holes of golf, Primate?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

Yes or no.

 

Actually, Sant, the definition of knowledge is still an ongoing debate in epistemology, starting with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". (see: Knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Personally I adhere to the view that (scientific) knowledge must be based on some form of logical understanding or (verifiable) formal theory, otherwise it would just be belief or speculation. I agree that as far as a logical argument is based on (or logically inferred from) other logical arguments, this can also be called knowledge. However, logic in itself cannot be considered knowledge, because a logical system is nothing but a minimal set of (arbitrary) axioms and inference rules, which per definition are not based on any other true assumptions.

 

If you insist, however, that knowledge is the basis of logic, because you have to know the axioms and inference rules in order to apply them, that's fine with me. I suggest you come up with your own definition of knowledge then, and introduce it to the epistemological community.

 

Note, that the only exception to my own definition of knowledge, might be knowledge of the Absolute Truth. As discussed earlier, it can be logically understood that Absolute Truth cannot be inferred from any logical system, and it might simply reveal itself to us. In that case we would have knowledge (of the Absolute Truth) without logical understanding..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish someday we can play mental golf, Sant. You and I with Visnu who carries a club. Oh how I just love to swing this driver club and whoOp! Propel that golf ball way up in the sky and cloOp! Score a hole in one!

 

Wanna play 8 holes of golf, Primate?:)

Personally, I prefer a game of chess.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Note, that the only exception to my own definition of knowledge, might be knowledge of the Absolute Truth. As discussed earlier, it can be logically understood that Absolute Truth cannot be inferred from any logical system, and it might simply reveal itself to us. In that case we would have knowledge (of the Absolute Truth) without logical understanding..

 

 

Where logic ends, knowledge of the Absolute Truth begins.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where logic ends, knowledge of the Absolute Truth begins.:)

Yes. Although such knowledge doesn’t fit into any regular definition of knowledge. In this sense it would not be knowledge but belief. As yet, we can only speculate about Absolute Truth. Perhaps my definition of knowledge would change if Absolute Truth reveals itself. But I must admit, you win this one.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, Sant, the definition of knowledge is still an ongoing debate in epistemology, starting with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". (see: Knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Personally I adhere to the view that (scientific) knowledge must be based on some form of logical understanding or (verifiable) formal theory, otherwise it would just be belief or speculation. I agree that as far as a logical argument is based on (or logically inferred from) other logical arguments, this can also be called knowledge. However, logic in itself cannot be considered knowledge, because a logical system is nothing but a minimal set of (arbitrary) axioms and inference rules, which per definition are not based on any other true assumptions.

 

 

Primate you may know more about definitions,But by knowledge i meant something you know.For example i have knowledge about the keyboard that by pressing enter the line will end and i will start from down.

by logic mind i meant-for example 90 years ago if someone told you that if you could take photos of seas and desserts and many other things without going to these places then you would laugh because your mind would not accept that you can do this since you dont have any knowledge about satellites, a.k.a you have limited knowledge and your logic mind would disagree to this and say this is not possible.Of course acording to you this would be correct since youve applied logic.But now since people have knowledge about satellite photography they can achieve this task.

I am not denying that through applying logic,you can learn new things or you can gain more knowledge.

No just a simple thing that since your mind has limited knowledge you can not use logic and say that something cannot be thereor can be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Although such knowledge doesn’t fit into any regular definition of knowledge. In this sense it would not be knowledge but belief. As yet, we can only speculate about Absolute Truth. Perhaps my definition of knowledge would change if Absolute Truth reveals itself. But I must admit, you win this one.. :)

 

 

How I wish we could go fishing, Primate. My father and I used to fish on a fish pond brimming with assorted fish grown for commercial use. We use chopped shrimps as bait for the bottom fish and shreds of lechon(roasted pig) to catch bangus(milk fish) that fllourished near the surface of the water. You must wonder why the surface milk fish loves to eat pork and the bottom fish crustaceans. Well, it was common knowledge that the owner of the fish pond owns a hospital where her left-overs are being fed to the fish by the care takers of the fish pond. However, there was an incident why I vowed not to fish again on that fish pond. When my father all alone fished on the day Jesus Christ died(Good Friday) several years ago. He caught a milk fish that flipped above the surface which unsnapped the hook that caught the fish. With one blink of the eye pierched my father`s right eye who did not wear his eye glasses that time. He drove straight home carrying several milk fish he caught with the hook in his right eye. Left the fish and directly went to the hospital owned by the owner of the fish pond where it was removed by his eye doctor friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Primate you may know more about definitions,But by knowledge i meant something you know.For example i have knowledge about the keyboard that by pressing enter the line will end and i will start from down.

by logic mind i meant-for example 90 years ago if someone told you that if you could take photos of seas and desserts and many other things without going to these places then you would laugh because your mind would not accept that you can do this since you dont have any knowledge about satellites, a.k.a you have limited knowledge and your logic mind would disagree to this and say this is not possible.Of course acording to you this would be correct since youve applied logic.But now since people have knowledge about satellite photography they can achieve this task.

I am not denying that through applying logic,you can learn new things or you can gain more knowledge.

No just a simple thing that since your mind has limited knowledge you can not use logic and say that something cannot be thereor can be there.

The fact that you anticipate that if you press Enter the cursor will jump to the next line, is not knowledge per se. Until you logically understand why this is the case, I would call it belief and not knowledge. Likewise, you can find out the function of all the keys on your keyboard simply by trial and error. Yet, until you logically understand the working of the keyboard, I would say that you just believe the keys have specific functions.

 

And communication satellites are here because some 50 years ago, people logically understood that it must be possible. Nowadays, most people believe communication satellites exist, and a few people actually know that they do.

 

I agree it’s all a matter of definition.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that you anticipate that if you press Enter the cursor will jump to the next line, is not knowledge per se. Until you logically understand why this is the case, I would call it belief and not knowledge. Likewise, you can find out the function of all the keys on your keyboard simply by trial and error. Yet, until you logically understand the working of the keyboard, I would say that

I was thinking you would say something like that.

Ok now you tell the logic why this happens.

 

 

people logically understood that it must be possible.

Yes so it is both ways.isnt it. With Logic you can have some more knowledge and by knowledge you had applied that logic.

Now the people who made the satellites beleived they could so its a matter of beleif that made them do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What does primate agree on.What is you definiton of logic or knowledge primate.

 

 

What I really mean is that when two people agree to disagree over an issue say, logic or knowledge even if both have already reached the same conclusion, one is urged to do something just to disagree. In chess, it`s called a perpetual check. In short, it`s a draw( nobody wins in the discussion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What does primate agree on.What is you definiton of logic or knowledge primate.

Sant, I think melvin is right. Let’s agree to disagree on this issue. I think by now I’ve made my definition of knowledge perfectly clear, and I’m not going to discuss any definition of logic. If you still don’t understand my point of view, then you can reread my last posts. I don’t think that I can make it any clearer for you. And if you disagree, then that’s fine. All I can say is that my definition of knowledge is the general scientific definition, which works for me, and which is what is generally understood as (scientific) knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In short, it`s a draw( nobody wins in the discussion).

quote.gif

 

Winning in a discussion about God means learning something about God. The positions of so-called winner and loser from the material point of view is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Winning in a discussion about God means learning something about God. The positions of so-called winner and loser from the material point of view is meaningless.

 

 

Swami Ramdev winning his argument, Homosexuality- a defect cured by Yoga, in the Supreme Court is like winning the lotto jackpot, Theist.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...