God is the spirit, the mind, the soul , the self which is the heart and brains of all creation. For a better definition you will have to ask someone who is better schooled in Truth.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:40 AM, pol.science kid <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 - >>> >> >> >
