On 28 Apr, 22:29, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > "God is pure consciousness, formless, unborn, eternal, indestructible > and the source, the spirit and the end of all. We are conscious, have > a form, are born, live and die. Our only solace is that we arise from > him, are upheld by him and go back to him. He is the Truth and we are > just his reflections and vanish when the vessel dies." > > The HE-approximation in 3 steps! Not even worth printing a book for! > God is far above us and beyond our comprehension, you say, the others > say? I wish you more overstanding, Pat. >
Overstanding? I like it!! ;-) Although I would debate 'pure consciousness', as my own existence is proof that that's not the case, given a scenario where there is, in truth, only one entity. As I am more than just consciousness, so is God...likeness and image, don't you know? Formless? Well, in essence, yes, but not in extension, and God's existence is 'in extension', so there are some forms and we, again, are the proof of that. Unborn? Absolutely...energy is neither created nor destroyed. Eternal? Well, in those dimensions that are not tied to the temporal dimension, yes. Thus some aspects are, without doubt eternal, like our consciousness and the existence of abstracts themselves, but out physical bodies and anything in 4-D space-time is, by definition, temporary due to the link to the temporal dimension. Indestructible? Yup! That's the other side of the Unborn coin. Source? Yes, without doubt. The spirit? Well, more than just that. The physical, as well. "All- inclusive is God's package, hmm?" (use Yoda's voice on that line for the best effect!!) The end of all? Can't be. That's over-ruled by "Indestructible", above. A truly nonsense way to end a definition in a self- contradicting fashion. I completely refute that God is the end of all. Although He will be responsible for the end of all that is temporal, that which is eternal is just that. Our only solace is that we arise from him, are upheld by him and go back to him? Well, in the author's view, perhaps. The author's 'solace' is what I would call 'a certainty' and would re-phrase the quote as "Our only surety is that we arise from him, are upheld by him and go back to him." He is the Truth and we are just his reflections and vanish when the vessel dies? Well, certainly He is 'the Truth' as much as "the Reality". In Arabic, this is "Allah Al-Haqq", which is the last line of Surah 22:6 of the Qur'an, so even God Himself states that. We are definitely reflections of His, but none of us reflects ALL of Him, so we pale in comparison. And, another contradiction arises between us 'going back to Him' and us 'vanish(ing) when the vessel dies'. Less contradiction would have helped the author understand. BTW, I don't believe He is totally beyond our comprehension and he is closer to us than anything can possibly be, so, not 'far above' either. Rather, He is both transcendant and immanent. He is, paradoxically (although not in a contradicting fashion) both above us via His transcendant omnipresence and throughout us via His immanent omnipresence. Being omnipotent, He can get away with a two-fold omnipotence that, whilst it creates a 'seeming paradox', it is resolved when one understands the nature of the mechanisms behind His omnipresence. Have I overstood it? > On 28 Apr., 16:10, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
