You still haven't watched Pi, I see. It's about 216 digits there. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_%28film%29
On 29 Apr., 15:21, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr »
