Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
creation wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 5:25 am
How do you define the word 'idealistic'?
Is something 'idealistic' even possible?
If yes, then why is my definition of God not idealistic?
But if no, then absolutely every definition of God that you call "idealistic" is not even possible to be true from the outset. So, from your perspective, ONLY those definitions of God that you do not call "idealistic" are even possible to be true.
Idealistic is defined as characterised by idealism; unrealistically aiming for perfection. That should answer your question.
So, it could be argued that you only like to look at and discuss the definitions of God that are idealistic, correct?
If yes, then that way your belief that God could not exist could never be refuted. Obviously, if only what is being looked at and discussed are the things that are literally unrealistic anyway, then your beliefs could never be logically disputed, nor refuted, Then, to you, you will always be right and correct, correct?
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Can you please explain how, to you, the Mind is not an intelligent and autonomous agent? I might need to actually explain more fully what the Mind is exactly?
What does the word 'Mind' mean, to you, exactly?
Where does the collection of all 'reference material' exist, or where did it come from? Is that thing a living entity?
And, what is the 'collection of reference material', or just a 'body of knowledge', if it is, as you say, not a living entity, itself?
If a 'body of knowledge' is not changing, and thus a living thing, or entity, in and of itself, then what is 'it'?
I went back to the other thread and reread your description of "Mind". I may have misunderstood it the first time. What I now understand is that "Mind" is (and just explain it if I'm still wrong) the aggregate of human thought, knowledge and creativity.
Thought is held within the brain. Thoughts are the collection of input from the five senses, from bodily experiences. The Mind is not the brain.
The Mind is, therefore, certainly not the aggregate of thought. Human thought individually is held within brains. The aggregate of human thought is therefore held with human brains, and more correctly also in writings. Knowledge is a part of human thought, along with views, beliefs, assumptions, values, opinions, et cetera. All of this is held within human brains, expressed in speech and/or writings, or in what they have created also, it could be said.
The Mind is a very different thing than the brain. There are as many brains as there are human bodies. There is only one Mind though, which each human being has, or has access to.
The Mind is always completely OPEN, and it is from this OPENNESS where human beings learn, understand, and reason anything, and everything.
The brain just collects and stores knowledge, or information. The Mind, however, is what allows the learning of absolutely anything. Although it is commonly said there is a human mind, there actually is not.
The brain is intellect. 'Intellect' just being the knowledge one has already gained.
The Mind is intelligence. 'Intelligence' just being the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.
Everyone is absolutely different in intellect. But, everyone is absolutely the same in intelligence. Although, and very sadly, intellect can all to easily close of the our intelligence, and everyone is at different stages of being between closed and being open.
Every human being is born completely open to absolutely anything. Every human being as they age closes of this openness, and ability to learn anything, with the intellect that they have gained, along the way.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
If this is so, this aspect of God would have been a recent development (only existing after the appearance of humanity) and is only located on planet earth.
Your understanding of what I was saying and meaning was wrong, which I have explained, but only in a tiny fraction of, so what you said here is missing the mark.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Even so, such a definition allows God to exist, albeit partially for 13.8 billion years, and then undergoing a shaky development of the other part in the last perhaps 200,000 years. The Mind as I understand from your definition is only as persistent as the human species is, and only as developed as human thought, knowledge and creativity is.
The Mind is an openness that exists. In human beings the Mind is allowing human beings to keep learning and discovering. The Mind combined with the amazing human brain which collectively it appears is able to gather and store seemingly more and more of learned knowledge continuously, and devise ways to keep learned knowledge stored outside of the brain, both together work in ways of understanding and revealing more about the Universe, Itself. The physical Universe, which exists forever, creates all creatures, which evolve until one has evolved enough with the ability to gather and store new knowledge, all the time. The Mind, which exists forever, allows an evolved enough creature to keep learning and understanding more, all the time.
The Mind is what allows the Universe to eventually evolve into something which could allow It to come to 'Know Thyself'.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
And while we can describe this Mind as intelligent and autonomous, it is far from anything ideal.
As I already suggest, if you are only looking for things that are unrealistic anyway, then what for?
So, you do not find a Mind, which has existed eternally, and just waits patiently for a species to evolve with enough knowledge to finally answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' as being far from anything ideal, then that is a sure sign, then 'I' am already HERE-NOW, revealing Thy Self.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Neither aspect of this definition of God is eternal, neither could be considered benevolent, neither aspect even approaches the vicinity of what can be called perfect.
Obviously, you are seeing things very differently than me.
To start with, your interpretation of what I said and meant was wrong to begin with. So, the rest of what you wrote here has completely misconstrued and taken out of context what I am meaning.
For example, the definition of God I have provide is eternal, is very benevolent, and is perfect.
You have not even questioned nor even challenged me on my definition yet. You have made an interpretation, and then just followed on with that assumed interpretation.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Obviously, there is absolutely nothing that exists, which is above, beyond, or separate from the Natural. So, how are you defining 'supernatural' here?
For all you, and I, know "theists" might actually be very interested in anything that backs up and supports their beliefs.
My definition of God might actually be far more inclusive of things than you could have ever imagined being possible, previously.
Are you not familiar with the commonly used definitions of God?
If there is a signal of just how much a human being is so closed off to the actual Truth of things it is in questions just like this.
Until you tell me what are the "commonly used definition" of God are, TO YOU, then I will never know what are the "commonly used definitions" of God, TO YOU.
Are you aware that there are some human beings who are NOT 'you', and so they live in different places, they are at different ages, to 'you', they speak different languages, than 'you', they have experienced completely different things, to 'you', so there is NO "commonly used definitions" of 'Anything'.
But feel free to share with me, and us readers, what are the "commonly used definitions" of God, that 'you' know of.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
God is not commonly defined as a being that is possible.
Okay.
But I do NOT really care about what are supposedly "common" definitions.
For me, I look at what is possible, if I am looking for things that could possibly exist.
I did not arrive at a definition of God, from looking at what is impossible.
Obviously to look at things logically, and reasonably, then what has to be looked at are things that could logically and reasonably be possible.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
God is always commonly defined as being supernatural and idealistic.
I have already suggested WHY you are hanging on very tightly to this definition of God. It would literally kill 'you' if what you believe is true, was proven to be actually wrong.
Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 18th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Your definition of God is not common. I assumed this was obvious to you.
And your sarcasm speaks loudly.
If you see any discrepancies between my definition of God, and what are the "common" to you definitions of God, (which you like to refute), then go ahead and explain those supposed discrepancies, and if I see that those to "supernatural and idealistic" definitions fit in perfectly with my definition, then I will tell you how they can be seen the same, and then you can try to prove how they could not exist. I have already invited you a couple of times now already to challenge me on anything here. So, what are you waiting for?
My definition may not YET be common. This is because my definition my be a new one. Which might even actually be true, right, and correct. Until I am seriously questioned and challenged on my definition, then we will never know if my definition actually proves the God, which is commonly held to be true, exists or not.
I will say this again, my definition is NOT at all that much different from the so called "commonly" held definitions of God, even those definitions, which you believe are "supernatural and idealistic" ones. You have already admitted my definition of God means God exists. Therefore, because my definition also includes those definitions you class as "supernatural and idealistic" that means that that 'God' exists too.