God's knowledge?

[Dontaskme]

Moreover, the only way the articulator can argue back is by supposing his view to be true, and asserting it as such; which would again falsify its basic claim!

Quite a pickle, that.

Now, there's a concept!

Please know that the 'Zen Mind' is not a self-contradicting false paradigm. The intellectual mind is.
Absolute understanding is not more of relative understanding or the maximum of relative understanding. Absolute understanding is clarity that relative understanding is illusory and not real. Absolute understanding is not a known entity that could be experienced, just as non-duality is not a known entity that could be experienced. Illusory does not mean relative understanding does not exist. Illusory means that relative understanding does exist, but it does not exist in the manner the mind thinks it exists. The illusory exists as it is an inherent quality of light by which a deception of reality is imagined in the mind as an actuality. This is neither a belief nor a concept.

''Delusion means you are not aware of your own fundamental mind.Enlightenment means you realize your own fundamental essence. Once enlightened, you do not become deluded anymore. If you understand mind and objects, then false conceptions do not arise, this is acceptance of the beginninglessness of things. You have always had it, and you have it now - there is no need to cultivate this. You cannot practice being this. You are this.'' ~ ZEN

[attofishpi]

That is not the only option left as there is another : God does not exist outside of human imagination

There are probably plenty - so here's mine since i KNOW God\'God' exists:

God IS the universe - it formed the logic that we can presently appreciate - REALITY.

God wanted to be cast into a form that others might interact in an intellectual social sexual manner not just for 'its' benefit but for ours.

God formed (now H)imself as a man.

There is no such thing as a Man or woman these are merely imputed and have no essence.

You are a waste of time.

[Immanuel Can]

Please know that the 'Zen Mind' is not a self-contradicting false paradigm.

Of course it is. That's exactly the point of a Zen koan...to make the mind imagine nothingness, oblivion, and that-which-cannot-exist.

The intellectual mind is.

Zen-ly speaking, you cannot say that. For to defend it requires a coherent and rational argument, and Zen denies such things have any meaning.

I suppose all you could really do is compose a koan about it, and hope people (if they exist, actually, which you'd have to believe they don't) somehow "get" it.

Illusory does not mean relative understanding does not exist.

Of course it does. "Exist in the mind only" is a synonym for "delusion." And the "delusion" of existence is what Zen tries to get us to concede or experience.

''Delusion means you are not aware of your own fundamental mind. Enlightenment means you realize your own fundamental essence. Once enlightened, you do not become deluded anymore. If you understand mind and objects, then false conceptions do not arise, this is acceptance of the beginninglessness of things. You have always had it, and you have it now - there is no need to cultivate this. You cannot practice being this. You are this.'' ~ ZEN

This is essentially what I'm saying. In Zen, "your own fundamental mind," is all there is that is not false. So no propositional knowledge is either true, "cultivatable" or "practicable."

It's a cute theory. But it's vulnerability is that it can only be gratuitiously believed or disbelieved, because it denies there is any utility to reason or evidence in settling the question. There is only the willingness of the acolyte to believe -- end of story.

And on a Philosophy forum, as everywhere else, Zen has nothing to say, because Philosophy requires propositions. You can't have a proposition that says propositions don't work, without inherent contradiction.

So, as you said at the start, you can say "Please know...", and hope that listeners will just concede the point without doubting it; but the minute you try to bring to bear evidence, logic or facts, you've actually departed the spirit of "the Zen mind" completely.

[Dontaskme]

So, as you said at the start, you can say "Please know...", and hope that listeners will just concede the point without doubting it; but the minute you try to bring to bear evidence, logic or facts, you've actually departed the spirit of "the Zen mind" completely.

Well I guess that's kinda what happens.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

[Dontaskme]

You are a waste of time.

There is no you or time except as imagined by no one.

[bahman]

It does not inherently do so. But information may be derivable from it, IF it encounters intelligence. A "form" may convey information from one agent to another. But of itself, it does not constitute information without those agents: somebody to intend, and somebody to receive.

I don't understand you. I just mentioned that I agree with what you stated. No you are saying something different.

No, I'm saying the same thing, but with a caveat. Information comes and is received by intelligent agents. The medium of its transfer may be words. But that does not mean that the words qua black-lines-on-paper have any intrinsic meaning. Their meaning is derived from the intelligence of the sender, and so is extrinsically derived, not intrinsic to the words themselves. Indeed, they cannot even rightly be termed "words" unless they are interpreted.

That I agree.

But now, let me snoop a little, if I may. I'm guessing you're from an Eastern tradition? That would explain your automatic belief that "oneness" entails "nothingness." Am I right?

I am not from an Eastern tradition. I have no idea about what you stated.

Your view sounds similar to many Eastern patterns of thought. It is not unproblematically applicable to the the Western concept of God. That's what made me think you must be channelling an Eastern perspective of some kind.

So what is the western concept of God? Does your God has form?

[Immanuel Can]

So, as you said at the start, you can say "Please know...", and hope that listeners will just concede the point without doubting it; but the minute you try to bring to bear evidence, logic or facts, you've actually departed the spirit of "the Zen mind" completely.

Well I guess that's kinda what happens.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Yes indeed.

"Rational?" What does that mean, if the world is illusion anyway? "Truths"? What are they, if everybody has his or her own, and nobody need agree? "Investigation?" Why investigate the Land of Illusions, when nothing can be found for sure? "Knowledge"? What is there to be 'known' about illusions, except that they are illusory?

It all goes nowhere, if Zen is the Launchpad.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is the western concept of God? Does your God has form?

In the Western view (see Judaism, Christianity, Islam and various others) "God" refers to the Supreme Being. But He has identity, will, specific characteristics and a definite nature. He is never thought to be "all things in one," and especially not to include evil or corruption in His nature.

As such, He can be known if He wishes to make Himself known. He can involve Himself in his Creation if He wishes as well. But not being coextensive with Creation (and Creation itself not being intrinsically "part of" Him, as in much Eastern thought), His interaction with Creation is optional: He can also allow the natural world to proceed naturally, according to laws He has set in place for it. Being a Law-like God, in that His character possesses definite particular traits with which He is utterly consistent, He can self-reveal, and can ground enterprises like science (which presupposes stable natural laws), and can make possible human freedom.

The "form" of God in Christianity is Trinitarian: God is one Entity, but composed of three "aspects" or distinct kinds of agency...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the three partake of exactly the same nature, each occupies a distinct role relative to the Creation and to human beings. "The Father" describes God in His aspect of sovereignty; the Son, in His aspect as "Word" and revelation; "the Spirit" describes God in His relational interactions, among other things.

Good and evil are said to be distinct and mutually exclusive. The Christian God is not, for example, associated in any way with that which is not good; and thus, evil is not a counterpart to good, but rather a sort of corruption or negation of what was originally intended to be good, that which is corrupted by dint of separation from God. So evil is fully regrettable, detestable and temporary, being a byproduct of human will, not an intrinsic feature of the Divine.

In contrast, in the Eastern way of thinking, broadly speaking, "all is God." "The God" is Unitarian, on the one hand, and yet (in things like Hinduism) may have a million avatars. "The gods" are particular aspects, but all of the Great Unity...as indeed is Creation. As in Gnosticism, "the God" has no particular character and nature, and what in the West is called "good" or "evil" are actually just different aspects of the Eternal Divine Principle, whatever it is. What we call "dark," "destructive" or "evil" in the West is just as much a part of the Eternal Divine Principle as "light," "creation" and "goodness." It's generally unknowable, largely impersonal; and in Buddhism, actually amounts to a sort of great Nothingness into which the human soul disappears with enlightenment.

Now, I have to say that here I'm painting with a broad brush, blending traditions for convenience at the moment; but I'm merely trying to show that there are very, very profound differences between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking about God. If we get that much, then it's enough, I hope, to amount to a reasonably fair response to your question.

[bahman]

So what is the western concept of God? Does your God has form?

In the Western view (see Judaism, Christianity, Islam and various others) "God" refers to the Supreme Being. But He has identity, will, specific characteristics and a definite nature. He is never thought to be "all things in one," and especially not to include evil or corruption in His nature.

As such, He can be known if He wishes to make Himself known. He can involve Himself in his Creation if He wishes as well. But not being coextensive with Creation (and Creation itself not being intrinsically "part of" Him, as in much Eastern thought), His interaction with Creation is optional: He can also allow the natural world to proceed naturally, according to laws He has set in place for it. Being a Law-like God, in that His character possesses definite particular traits with which He is utterly consistent, He can self-reveal, and can ground enterprises like science (which presupposes stable natural laws), and can make possible human freedom.

The "form" of God in Christianity is Trinitarian: God is one Entity, but composed of three "aspects" or distinct kinds of agency...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the three partake of exactly the same nature, each occupies a distinct role relative to the Creation and to human beings. "The Father" describes God in His aspect of sovereignty; the Son, in His aspect as "Word" and revelation; "the Spirit" describes God in His relational interactions, among other things.

Good and evil are said to be distinct and mutually exclusive. The Christian God is not, for example, associated in any way with that which is not good; and thus, evil is not a counterpart to good, but rather a sort of corruption or negation of what was originally intended to be good, that which is corrupted by dint of separation from God. So evil is fully regrettable, detestable and temporary, being a byproduct of human will, not an intrinsic feature of the Divine.

In contrast, in the Eastern way of thinking, broadly speaking, "all is God." "The God" is Unitarian, on the one hand, and yet (in things like Hinduism) may have a million avatars. "The gods" are particular aspects, but all of the Great Unity...as indeed is Creation. As in Gnosticism, "the God" has no particular character and nature, and what in the West is called "good" or "evil" are actually just different aspects of the Eternal Divine Principle, whatever it is. What we call "dark," "destructive" or "evil" in the West is just as much a part of the Eternal Divine Principle as "light," "creation" and "goodness." It's generally unknowable, largely impersonal; and in Buddhism, actually amounts to a sort of great Nothingness into which the human soul disappears with enlightenment.

Now, I have to say that here I'm painting with a broad brush, blending traditions for convenience at the moment; but I'm merely trying to show that there are very, very profound differences between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking about God. If we get that much, then it's enough, I hope, to amount to a reasonably fair response to your question.

Thank you. That was long. You however didn't answer my question: Does God have a form in western system of belief in order to hold knowledge?

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you. That was long. You however didn't answer my question: Does God have a form in western system of belief in order to hold knowledge?

The God of Christianity is a Trinity. That means God has a specified "form," though not the kind of "form" humans do, so we can't draw immediate analogies from human experience without risking jumping to wrong conclusions based on them.

I could swear I said that...

[thedoc]

So what is the western concept of God? Does your God has form?

In the Western view (see Judaism, Christianity, Islam and various others) "God" refers to the Supreme Being. But He has identity, will, specific characteristics and a definite nature. He is never thought to be "all things in one," and especially not to include evil or corruption in His nature.

As such, He can be known if He wishes to make Himself known. He can involve Himself in his Creation if He wishes as well. But not being coextensive with Creation (and Creation itself not being intrinsically "part of" Him, as in much Eastern thought), His interaction with Creation is optional: He can also allow the natural world to proceed naturally, according to laws He has set in place for it. Being a Law-like God, in that His character possesses definite particular traits with which He is utterly consistent, He can self-reveal, and can ground enterprises like science (which presupposes stable natural laws), and can make possible human freedom.

The "form" of God in Christianity is Trinitarian: God is one Entity, but composed of three "aspects" or distinct kinds of agency...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the three partake of exactly the same nature, each occupies a distinct role relative to the Creation and to human beings. "The Father" describes God in His aspect of sovereignty; the Son, in His aspect as "Word" and revelation; "the Spirit" describes God in His relational interactions, among other things.

Good and evil are said to be distinct and mutually exclusive. The Christian God is not, for example, associated in any way with that which is not good; and thus, evil is not a counterpart to good, but rather a sort of corruption or negation of what was originally intended to be good, that which is corrupted by dint of separation from God. So evil is fully regrettable, detestable and temporary, being a byproduct of human will, not an intrinsic feature of the Divine.

Now, I have to say that here I'm painting with a broad brush, blending traditions for convenience at the moment; but I'm merely trying to show that there are very, very profound differences between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking about God. If we get that much, then it's enough, I hope, to amount to a reasonably fair response to your question.

Thank you. That was long. You however didn't answer my question: Does God have a form in western system of belief in order to hold knowledge?

Did you miss this part? did you read it, or did you simply not understand it?

[thedoc]

I could swear I said that...

I do understand why some people just throw up their hands and walk away from these internet Trolls, especially the ones who just seem to be here for a fight, and not to really discuss anything. They just disagree and argue for the sake of a fight.

[Immanuel Can]

I could swear I said that...

I do understand why some people just throw up their hands and walk away from these internet Trolls, especially the ones who just seem to be here for a fight, and not to really discuss anything. They just disagree and argue for the sake of a fight.

It seems so. Still, I like to try to believe in people until they prove me wrong.

[bahman]

Thank you. That was long. You however didn't answer my question: Does God have a form in western system of belief in order to hold knowledge?

The God of Christianity is a Trinity. That means God has a specified "form," though not the kind of "form" humans do, so we can't draw immediate analogies from human experience without risking jumping to wrong conclusions based on them.

I could swear I said that...

So what about my argument? Do you have any counter-argument to show me that I am wrong somewhere? To be honest I cannot imagine something which has no form and can hold knowledge.

[bahman]

In the Western view (see Judaism, Christianity, Islam and various others) "God" refers to the Supreme Being. But He has identity, will, specific characteristics and a definite nature. He is never thought to be "all things in one," and especially not to include evil or corruption in His nature.

As such, He can be known if He wishes to make Himself known. He can involve Himself in his Creation if He wishes as well. But not being coextensive with Creation (and Creation itself not being intrinsically "part of" Him, as in much Eastern thought), His interaction with Creation is optional: He can also allow the natural world to proceed naturally, according to laws He has set in place for it. Being a Law-like God, in that His character possesses definite particular traits with which He is utterly consistent, He can self-reveal, and can ground enterprises like science (which presupposes stable natural laws), and can make possible human freedom.

The "form" of God in Christianity is Trinitarian: God is one Entity, but composed of three "aspects" or distinct kinds of agency...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the three partake of exactly the same nature, each occupies a distinct role relative to the Creation and to human beings. "The Father" describes God in His aspect of sovereignty; the Son, in His aspect as "Word" and revelation; "the Spirit" describes God in His relational interactions, among other things.

Good and evil are said to be distinct and mutually exclusive. The Christian God is not, for example, associated in any way with that which is not good; and thus, evil is not a counterpart to good, but rather a sort of corruption or negation of what was originally intended to be good, that which is corrupted by dint of separation from God. So evil is fully regrettable, detestable and temporary, being a byproduct of human will, not an intrinsic feature of the Divine.

Now, I have to say that here I'm painting with a broad brush, blending traditions for convenience at the moment; but I'm merely trying to show that there are very, very profound differences between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking about God. If we get that much, then it's enough, I hope, to amount to a reasonably fair response to your question.

Thank you. That was long. You however didn't answer my question: Does God have a form in western system of belief in order to hold knowledge?

Did you miss this part? did you read it, or did you simply not understand it?

Yes, I read his comment about form of Christian God but that is no fulfill me.