I never said God is nothing , I only said God is not made of anything because everything proceeds from him , including energy.We are all parts of God only in the sense as our children are part of us.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, pol.science kid <[email protected]>wrote: > >> so ... who is God exactly?? >> >> >> Well to put it simply God is the entirety of the universe and more > totally not separable > > > > >> 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. >>> >>> >>> > God is not nothing but everything.. including you . > > Allan > > >> 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 - >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > Be Paranoid. > God is always building a better idiot!!! >
