Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. I look for ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be employing 11 dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to the "One" or God as I like to call it?
On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of something. You cannot > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes are manmade and > > useful only for our understanding which is limited. Omnipotent, > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding so that we can > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any religion in this > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of logic and not a > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much, they believe in > > what the scripture says and pray according to their faith. Some > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such activities. I > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too much above us and > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual acceptance. > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of evidence-- > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily enough, it is > my life's work to answer these very questions and, I'm afraid that I, > personally, cannot close the book on it until I've written that book. > And that will be done. You and many others believe that God is so far > above and beyond us that we can never hope to understand Him. In the > very face of that obstacle, I will persue it to the very end simply > because others don't or won't. It's my obligation, as no one else > dares. They say that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, well, > I rush in where fools fear to tread. Some may think that, then, > incredibly foolish, yet I view it as my office and obligation. I'll > never fill in all the fine details, but I will pin down enough that > the concept (of God) will be known and will be discussed, because it > is my firm belief that God is NOT so transcendant as to be completely > beyond our comprehension, rather, His immanence gives Him a closeness > to us all that we, each of us, can hold on to and learn from within. > All that is needed is a roadmap and a few guideposts and I'm working > on them. > > I do agree with you that "energy is something and God is the source of > something". I agree with that through extending that energy back TO > its source. Essentially, God is a multi-dimensional object of stringy > energy that is twisted and contorted in such a way as to produce all > that is in this 4-D universe as well as everything in any heaven and > hell and many other places, as well. This, God does by extending > Himself through those dimensions and using the ends of those > extensions to interact with one another to produce all that exists. > It is His obligation to do that, as there is nothing ELSE that can. > > > > > On Apr 28, 4:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 28 Apr, 11:55, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather everything emanates > > > > from him. He is above all attributes and the source of all. > > > > I would completely refute that. To date, we have discovered nothing > > > that exists that is not comprised of energy. It is energy that > > > exists. If you can find something that is NOT energy, then, please, > > > do so and take the Nobel Prize in Physics. If God does not consist of > > > 'something', then He must consist of 'nothing' and nothing can EVER > > > come from nothing. Rather, God must consist of some substance and, > > > the only underlying substance we have ever discovered is energy, > > > albeit in countless 'forms'. Nothin could emanate from nothing. So > > > that statement, too, I refute. Rather, everything emantates from (or, > > > as I would term it, everything is an extension of) God. He has many > > > attributes, 99 according to Islam. I can use just three to derive the > > > rest from. If He is completely beyond attributes, He can do nothing. > > > Therefore, if you state that He has no attributes, then He is NOT > > > omnipotent, as omnipotence is an attribute. Without omnipotenece, He > > > is impotent. And, even Impotence would be an attribute. But it would > > > be no attribute of an effective deity. He cannot be the source of all > > > if He is, in fact, nothing (made of any substance or energy), as you > > > suggest. Do try to re-think this one. I would bet every soul on my > > > statement that God is an entity of energy (and that is a very heavy > > > bet, indeed). Are you that sure of your statements, as stated, above? > > > > > On Apr 27, 4:50 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 26 Apr, 22:48, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everybody! > > > > > > This thread for me is just great, as it seems to describe God in a > > > > > > way > > > > > > that even the atheist may accept and it is more or less just as I > > > > > > see > > > > > > God. Just to say my own personal views I am going to describe my God > > > > > > for you thus: > > > > > > God may well be the positive-life-energy that exists in the whole > > > > > > universe; therefore, God is life and life is God himself and one > > > > > > cannot exist without the other. We should believe in God, because if > > > > > > God is not there, there is no life and we are all dead. What do you > > > > > > think? Do you think I maybe right about it? > > > > > > My regards to everyone > > > > > > Manfraco > > > > > > Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. If we equate energy (be > > > > > that positive or negative or matter/antimatter) with 'the substance of > > > > > God', that is, the 'stuff' that God is made of, then everything that > > > > > exists is made of that God-originating substance. That is my view on > > > > > it. If we deny that energy exists, we're idiots, because it does. > > > > > The question is: Is that energy somehow joined and, if so, how and > > > > > where? These are the bases for my theory and I show how and where the > > > > > energy is joined. Once that energy is 'unified' or, more precisely, > > > > > shown to be undivided, then we can discuss that energy as a 'whole'. > > > > > And that 'whole' is everywhere energy is, throughout all of space- > > > > > time, therefore omnipresent. That energy is, because it is joined > > > > > (or, rather, never divided in the first place!), only one entity made > > > > > of energy. That entity is the only actor in the system and is, > > > > > therefore, omnipotent. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms involved > > > > > in consciousness, if there is only one, indivisible actor in the > > > > > system, then ALL consciousness is retained by that entity, therefore, > > > > > that entity is omniscient. Thus, the entity is omnipresent, > > > > > omnipotent and omniscient, fulfilling the three basic requirements for > > > > > deity. That's how I get from describing a particular configuration of > > > > > energy (which could be viewed in an atheistic fashion) yet it leads > > > > > one to a deistic paradigm, once one has realised that 'the > > > > > configuration that energy has taken' actually defines itself AS God by > > > > > virtue of it maintaining the three required attributes of deity. > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 9:44 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 25 Apr, 16:38, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > God may or may not be conscious. Some of us are conscious and > > > > > > > > we would like to think that someone consciously designed us > > > > > > > > rather than to imagine we may be designed by convergence not by > > > > > > > > conscious creation. If however, However if indeed God is > > > > > > > > conscious - as some of us are conscious - then we are able to > > > > > > > > make choices. The choices we cannot avoid making are those > > > > > > > > choices that have to do with the necessity of solving problems > > > > > > > > of daily living. The best choices are those that are derived > > > > > > > > from making informed decisions. Informed decisions are derived > > > > > > > > from applying critical thinking which also include > > > > > > > > contributions of the heart, and soul. > > > > > > > > A God that is not conscious could not be omniscient. A God that > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > omniscient is not conscious in the same way that we are, as we > > > > > > > are not > > > > > > > omniscient. God cannot tire, as He is Omnipotent, therefore, He > > > > > > > requires no rest, again, unlike our form of consciousness that > > > > > > > requires rest. Whilst there are similarities, there are vast > > > > > > > differences. Likeness is not equality, therefore, when it is > > > > > > > said we > > > > > > > are created in His likeness, do not expect that our existence is, > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > any way, equal to His. Rather, our existence is 'like' His in > > > > > > > certain > > > > > > > respects, but completely unlike in others. A careful > > > > > > > consideration of > > > > > > > the three qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence > > > > > > > (both > > > > > > > transcendant and immanent) are required to make a proper analysis. > > > > > > > The choices that we cannot avoid making are those that are events > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > are extant in the space-time continuum, all others simply will nor > > > > > > > occur and you will never experience them. If you experience > > > > > > > something, then you know that it was always a part of the > > > > > > > continuum > > > > > > > and you know (albeit after the fact!!) that it was necessary. > > > > > > > > > The capability and the ability to make informed decisions also > > > > > > > > implies the right and I think the responsibility of every > > > > > > > > person to dissent from those opinions which are deemed ill > > > > > > > > informed. This means that whatever we call God is not the final > > > > > > > > authority with respect to what is ultimately considered to be > > > > > > > > in each persons best interest. > > > > > > > > Rather, God is the final authority irrespective of our views OF > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > deity, by the necessity of the defining quality of omnipotence. > > > > > > > Otherwise, you must assume that you have some authority that God > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > not and THAT is incompatible with omnipotence. > > > > > > > > > The long winded point I am trying to make is that with respect > > > > > > > > to whatever data is singled out - i.e. God, unity - > > > > > > > > consciousness - each > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
