On 2 June, 10:48, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Ahh, I see (at least, I THINK I understand what you're getting at), i.e., He consists of no 'parts'. That would be correct. In my view, that energy that forms His 'substance' is 'extended' in order to create, so, in fact, there are extensions (emanations, if you prefer that term) but not 'parts', as the One is NOT divided. > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
