so ... who is God exactly??
On 6/1/10, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > We cannot make something out of nothing but God is the wonder who makes > everything out of nothing. > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Pat <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On 29 May, 05:07, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather he is the creator of >> > energy. He is pure spirit , untouched by anything and the source of >> > everything. >> > >> >> >> Whilst I've heard that said many times, if God is not made of any >> substance but 'pure Spirit', what, then, is pure spirit made of? I >> can only find one thing that exists in this universe...energy. But, >> of course, that 'form' of energy is unlike any other and I can easily >> see why you may not understand it AS energy. Yet there is nothing >> ELSE that exists. IF you believe that energy is 'sourced' from >> spirit, then energy itself must be another form of 'Spirit'. If that >> is the case, then energy and spirit are still interchangable like >> energy and mass. >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Pat <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > On 27 May, 20:15, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > The universe came out of nothing. But what is that nothing? It is >> the >> > > > Spirit, the Mind, and it is not made of any substance or energy; it >> does >> > > not >> > > > occupy any space and has no attribute except that it is the soul >> from >> > > which >> > > > the whole universe emanates , is governed and reclaimed. It is >> eternal >> > > and >> > > > uncreate. >> > >> > > I think it would be very hard to state firmly that Spirit or Mind is, >> > > in essence, nothing. As nothing is nothing. You can't, logically, >> > > equate nothing with something and both spirit and/or Mind is >> > > something. We've found nothing in this universe that isn't some form >> > > of energy, what makes you think that energy isn't also the substance >> > > of Spirit? I propose that it is, although a form that is not >> > > tangible, simply because it doesn't exist in our 4-D space-time. It >> > > emanates via a physical interface and it is that physical interface >> > > that we CAN detect. But I will definitely agree 100% that Spirit is >> > > the driving force behind this universe and that it both governs this >> > > universe and that our individual spirits will be 'reclaimed' by the >> > > One. But, as energy is neither created nor destroyed, it then can >> > > also be described as eternal and uncreated. Rather than 'nothing', >> > > energy in 'pure spiritual' form was the form that existed prior to any >> > > 'original', physical creation. >> > >> > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Pat < >> [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > On 25 May, 18:30, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have >> written >> > > > > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic >> alternative. >> > > > > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an >> effect >> > > with >> > > > > > > no cause. >> > >> > > > > > But that's your presumption, Pat, about atheist belief or non - >> > > > > > belief ! Whoever said it is without cause. The scientific view >> would >> > > > > > be that both cause and effect are the same, only differentiated >> by >> > > > > > time. It's One, and it's nature. The same that is both cause and >> > > > > > effect. >> > >> > > > > The standard scientific view is that the Big Bang sprang forth >> from >> > > > > 'nothing'. I.e., no cause. Something from nothing. That is, >> simply >> > > > > put, absurd. And there is no evidence that anything can come from >> > > > > nothing. Rather, it is far more likely that 'everything' would, >> at >> > > > > some point, appear to be nothing, given a particular geometric >> > > > > configuration. Science purporting that cause and effect are the >> same >> > > > > is bordering on theology. Science (with respect to the Standard >> Model >> > > > > and/or Quantum Dynamics) does NOT purport Oneness, so, please, >> refrain >> > > > > from stating that it does. >> > >> > > > > > > There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any >> > > > > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. >> With >> > > > > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by >> > > atheistic >> > > > > > > viewpoint). >> > >> > > > > > The only purpose is anthropomorphic, as we humans can fathom. >> And >> > > that >> > > > > > should be perfectly acceptable, compared to anything delusional >> you >> > > > > > may be convinced of ! >> > >> > > > > LOL!! More animosity. Response: yes, perhaps the purpose for US >> > > > > would be anthropomorphic, but, for any creature, it would be >> > > > > creaturomorphic, if you can get your head around that. If you >> think >> > > > > that delusional rather than objective and egalitarian to all >> species, >> > > > > then, I can live with that. >> > >> > > > > > > Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is >> > > > > > > it 'without purpose'? >> > >> > > > > > Yes. Much of it, that is ! >> > >> > > > > Actually, there is nothing done in this universe without purpose. >> > > > > Every effect is the purpose of the cause. And, if, as you state >> > > > > above, both cause and effect are the same, then there could be NO >> > > > > differentiation as your 'much of it' implies. Rather, it's an all >> or >> > > > > nothing. Simple logic without the emotional content. >> > >> > > > > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential >> outcomes to >> > > > > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every >> action >> > > > > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you >> have >> > > > > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. >> However, I'm >> > > > > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how >> > > > > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and >> no >> > > > > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? >> > >> > > > > > What has the Newton's Third Law do with your delusional talk, >> Pat ? >> > > > > > Why are you bringing it up ? >> > >> > > > > The third law of motion is for 'bodies in motion'. Newton did NOT >> > > > > state that those bodies had to be 'physical' and, as he was an >> > > > > alchemist, I seriously doubt that he really believed that his laws >> > > > > were bound to the physical; however, of course, a carefully >> couched >> > > > > statement as "a body in motion..." covers himself and allows the >> > > > > reader to make false inferences. And why do you insist that what >> I >> > > > > say is delusional? Disprove me! Or are you going to hide behind >> the >> > > > > "I don't have to back up my negative statement" argument that is, >> so >> > > > > often bandied about by those who have no argument? >> > >> > > > > > Yes, the Law works in Newtonian mechanical universe, but perhaps >> not >> > > > > > in photonic dimensions, in EM environment ! But, so what ? >> > >> > > > > Uh, I think you'll find that a photon in motion will react in >> > > > > accordance with Newton's laws of reaction to other bodies. And, >> of >> > > > > course, you won't find a photon at rest. What are'photonic >> > > > > dimensions', BTW? Or are you obfuscating on purpose? >> > >> > > > > > Stop beating about the bush, Pat ! Just state what do you know, >> as >> > > is >> > > > > > evident. Also, state what you believe, as against know. It's >> > > important >> > > > > > for you to segregate the two to eliminate the delusional effects >> > > > > > heavily settled upon you. >> > >> > > > > I'm not deluded. Prove that I am! Just state what you know and >> > > > > believe...all of it. In 3 lines. LOL!! No, of course I won't >> hold >> > > > > you to that, it would be grossly unfair. So why do you insist on >> > > > > being unfair to me? Rationality? More likely you fear your >> paradigm >> > > > > being shifted. Good. Many people will. Others will welcome it. >> I >> > > > > expect a spectrum of reactions and yours are well within >> tolerance. >> > > > > You have now asked me to 'state what I believe'. Do you really >> think >> > > > > I have time to do that? Not even my book will cover all of what I >> > > > > believe as most of what I believe ( for example, what my sister >> thinks >> > > > > about her nephews) is completely irrelevant to what you are >> enquiring >> > > > > about. It's important for you that I fit into a compartment for >> you >> > > > > so that you can discriminate according to your preconceived >> > > > > notions...that's one thing that I now believe. I also believe >> that >> > > > > you believe that I'm deluded. I'm not. Prove otherwise. You've >> made >> > > > > the positive statement that I'm deluded. Back it up. And, by >> the >> > > > > way, use as much time and effort as you like. However, if I were >> in >> > > > > your position, I wouldn't waste a single moment on it because ANY >> > > > > amount of time spent on trying to prove me deluded will be, by >> your >> > > > > own view, wasted time. >> > >> > > > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any >> work on >> > > me. >> > > > > Why >> > > > > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want >> people >> > > to >> > > > > enjoy >> > > > > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" >> > > trying >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > kiss god's ass? >> > >> > > > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He >> said. >> > >> > > > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. >> > >> > > > > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. >> How >> > > would >> > > > > you >> > > > > > > > > know? >> > >> > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered >> > > questions/unexplained >> > > > > phenomena >> > > > > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice >> little man >> > > > > made "God >> > > > > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking >> at the >> > > > > world >> > > > > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" >> and I >> > > often >> > > > > find >> > > > > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this >> as >> > > > > empirical >> > > > > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might >> conclude >> > > this >> > > > > is mass >> > > > > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the >> diversity >> > > of >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of >> these >> > > > > > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you >> hooked on >> > > > > your lack >> > > > > > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very >> same >> > > thing >> > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your >> are >> > > bound >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have >> the >> > > > > believing >> > > > > > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It >> comes >> > > down >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control >> and >> > > > > greed for >> > > > > > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, >> spoke of >> > > > > "the >> > > > > > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being >> worshiped. It >> > > is >> > > > > not the >> > > > > > > > > > > true >> > >> >> > ... >> > >> > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> > >
