How about this definitory variant: God can be any*? And yes, it's too short to sell, I know.
On 2 Jun., 12:49, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr »
