Are God's Creations Real?

[PsychoticEpisode]

The story goes that at some point God was alone in His world and He decided to end His solitude by creating a place with little monkey people to live in it. In reality, we and everything else are a thought element. In fact you could say we essentially exist because God thought of us.

Technically speaking then, God is still alone, a God with His thoughts. Can God be any other way should He exist? So if God exists then nothing else does, for God in this case should be the only reality, a total non fabrication, the true package.

However.......

Being fabricated by God from out of nothingness could mean that we and everything else are still nothing, or not real as if a part of a dream. For us to exist then we have to be on par with God, or at least have arrived on the scene at the same time as co-tenants in the universe. We must be completely 100% seperate from God in order to be real. Only then can we attempt to prove or acknowledge God's existence.

That would mean God had nothing to do with our being here. It does not make Him our Lord and Master(as Creator) since we had to have come into being together, in order to be real.

I can't possibly be real if I come from nothing. I have trouble getting over this hurdle everytime I think of a creator God, the old something from nothing. I either came here together with God or I made Him up once I arrived. God can only be real if I didn't make Him up. Thus God did not create. We deserve to be here as much as God, if He exists at all. There is more of a reason for me to be real than God.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Nope. You do not exist. This is actually just a very detailed game of Sims 2.

[one_raven]

Even if we are just figments of imagination inside God's head, if he created us with free will then we are effectively real - as he created us to be beyond his control.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

1st, it must be proven that god is real.
No matter how powerful a being may be, they can't get something from nothing. Thus if only 1 being exists & makes something, it has to be made from the being itself. God took a "rib" from itself.

[one_raven]

1st, it must be proven that god is real.
Why must it be proven that God is real to have a philosophical discussion regarding what the nature of a creator God may be?

No matter how powerful a being may be, they can't get something from nothing.
Thus if only 1 being exists & makes something, it has to be made from the being itself. God took a "rib" from itself.
1.) How can you be so sure?
2.) Perhaps the building blocks always existed, and God was the one to get the ball rolling. Perhaps many things - that's the point of these discussions, in my opinion.

Imagine, for example, there was nothing but an infinite sea of an infinite number of the one fundamental particle, just watiting for the first spark of energy.
That first spark of energy would come from God's consciousness.

[lightgigantic]

The story goes that at some point God was alone in His world and He decided to end His solitude by creating a place with little monkey people to live in it. In reality, we and everything else are a thought element. In fact you could say we essentially exist because God thought of us.
As far as I am aware, the story is that god has numerous eternal contingent potencies - this material world is one, the spiritual world is another and we (who find ourselves either in the material or spiritual world) are a third

Technically speaking then, God is still alone, a God with His thoughts.
... or more correctly, a god with his potencies

Can God be any other way should He exist? So if God exists then nothing else does, for God in this case should be the only reality, a total non fabrication, the true package.
even a casual study of ontology reveals numerous ways and means to determine the greater and lesser aspects of "reality"

However.......

Being fabricated by God from out of nothingness could mean that we and everything else are still nothing, or not real as if a part of a dream.
if we are "fabricated" from god, why are we fabricated from nothing?

For us to exist then we have to be on par with God, or at least have arrived on the scene at the same time as co-tenants in the universe.
...hence the "eternal contingent potency" part of the story

We must be completely 100% seperate from God in order to be real. Only then can we attempt to prove or acknowledge God's existence.
the interesting thing about a contingent potency is that it is simultaneously one yet different from the cause (called "acintya bedabeda tattva in sanskrit. For instance take smoke as a contingent potency of fire. There is no question of smoke unless there is fire (so it is one with fire), yet smoke displays qualities that are distinct from fire - eg you can't cook with it - (so it is different from fire)

That would mean God had nothing to do with our being here. It does not make Him our Lord and Master(as Creator) since we had to have come into being together, in order to be real.

I can't possibly be real if I come from nothing. I have trouble getting over this hurdle everytime I think of a creator God, the old something from nothing. I either came here together with God or I made Him up once I arrived. God can only be real if I didn't make Him up. Thus God did not create. We deserve to be here as much as God, if He exists at all. There is more of a reason for me to be real than God.
the problem is already solved kiddo
;)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why must it be proven that God is real to have a philosophical discussion regarding what the nature of a creator God may be?
.

To reach a valid answer to the question, it can't be assumed there's a god.
But I didn't say we couldn't have a discussion from the premise that there is a god. Obviously, I made a step in that direction.

1.) How can you be so sure?
2.) Perhaps the building blocks always existed, and God was the one to get the ball rolling. Perhaps many things - that's the point of these discussions, in my opinion.

Imagine, for example, there was nothing but an infinite sea of an infinite number of the one fundamental particle, just watiting for the first spark of energy.
That first spark of energy would come from God's consciousness.

I see now I wasn't quite clear enough. I should've said (& I meant) if nothing exists but the 1 being. I did say no something from NOTHING tho.

[one_raven]

The question still stands...
You said it doesn't matter how powerful the being is.
How can you be so sure that a sufficiently powerful being coul dnot create something out of nothing?

Assuming the being does exist, that presumes that energy must also exist and some claim that energy is the fundamental aspcet of all matter.
What IS nothing, anyway.
If space existed for the being to exist in, does space itself have a fasbric of existence?

I think there are quite a few scenarios that could be reasonable, once you accept, if just for the sake of argument, that a creator God was the first thing to exist.

[Leo Volont]

Everyone should be a bit familiar with Sanskrit Philosophy... just so we don't have so many cases of people attempting, so to speak, to re-invent the wheel all the time. so much of what people struggle to think up themselves is already commonplace to little children in the Sanskrit Tradition.

Religion is a matter of viewpoint. Advaita, or Unity, is sort of a Mystical View that there is only One... no separation or duality is perceived. Spiritually it is a very High place to be, but in the actual World Advaita people come off as extremely Autistic... unless you have a good sense of the difference between one's own self and body from those of others, then it becomes difficult to hold down a job and pay the bills.

So most people see things in terms of Duality. God still exists within Duality, but in a Transcendent Sphere where all relationship resolves into Unity.

But the moment where any Subject or Object is distinguished as separate, then the Framework of Duality comes into play.

Notice that the Universe is the Same in either case. Only the Psychology of Perception and Viewpoint change.

Perfectly, or rather, Most Practically, one should be able to glimpse the Transcendent Advaita Unity once in awhile... this is called God Realization. It is what ALL mystics had done, at least once. But then one must return to the view of Duality in order to function.

You know, it IS a bit more than just viewpoint. The Experience of Oneness is often expansive... going beyond one's own borders. I remember a friend I had met in India. He had sat for Meditation but soon stirred. He asked that I follow him. About a half a mile away, where we had not been all day, there was a cow tangled up in his rope, and his water bucket had been knocked over. He got the cow some water. he explained that in his Meditation he had expanded out and had felt himself as the struggling thirsty cow.

Even out of trance that guy was sort of Hooked In. I remember him arguing with the Taxi Drivers over the smallest differences in pricing, and so I gave the Cabbies a nod and a wind behind my friends back indicating that they were to seem to break down and give up and let my friend believe he had won the argument, and I would pay the slight difference myself. They did a wonderful job, surrendering surely but not too quickly. At first my friend was delighted with himself. Then we went to tea. It must have been a half an hour later when my friend suddenly blirted out "You signalled the cabbies to give in and you planned to pay the difference yourself, didn't you?" Well, I just laughed in his face for being so petty... but he clearly had some insight into things which was most easily explained by supposing that he had a great deal of fluidity in his 'personal' boundaries.


The story goes that at some point God was alone in His world and He decided to end His solitude by creating a place with little monkey people to live in it. In reality, we and everything else are a thought element. In fact you could say we essentially exist because God thought of us.

Technically speaking then, God is still alone, a God with His thoughts. Can God be any other way should He exist? So if God exists then nothing else does, for God in this case should be the only reality, a total non fabrication, the true package.

However.......

Being fabricated by God from out of nothingness could mean that we and everything else are still nothing, or not real as if a part of a dream. For us to exist then we have to be on par with God, or at least have arrived on the scene at the same time as co-tenants in the universe. We must be completely 100% seperate from God in order to be real. Only then can we attempt to prove or acknowledge God's existence.

That would mean God had nothing to do with our being here. It does not make Him our Lord and Master(as Creator) since we had to have come into being together, in order to be real.

I can't possibly be real if I come from nothing. I have trouble getting over this hurdle everytime I think of a creator God, the old something from nothing. I either came here together with God or I made Him up once I arrived. God can only be real if I didn't make Him up. Thus God did not create. We deserve to be here as much as God, if He exists at all. There is more of a reason for me to be real than God.

[PsychoticEpisode]

No matter how powerful a being may be, they can't get something from nothing. Thus if only 1 being exists & makes something, it has to be made from the being itself.

Agree. The only resource available would be part or all of God himself unless He wasn't the only thing floating around out there. Somehow I think this is where theists will claim that what actually occurred is beyond our comprehension.

[PsychoticEpisode]

As far as I am aware, the story is that god has numerous eternal contingent potencies - this material world is one, the spiritual world is another and we (who find ourselves either in the material or spiritual world) are a third


... or more correctly, a god with his potencies

even a casual study of ontology reveals numerous ways and means to determine the greater and lesser aspects of "reality"

if we are "fabricated" from god, why are we fabricated from nothing?

...hence the "eternal contingent potency" part of the story

What I tell ya. The story of God isn't as simple as it once was. I'm sure during the last few thousand years that the ordinary slob spent countless sleepless nights worrying about God's eternal contingent potency. God better start worrying about our intelligence lest we find out about Him.

LG, I'm happy that you're getting a chance to access the glossary of terms book that's been collecting dust on your bookshelf.

the problem is already solved kiddo

Yaayyy! What problem? There's a problem?

[JDawg]

I can't possibly be real if I come from nothing

I'm no theist, but I fail to see how this is a logical statement. Assuming there is a God, why would being created from nothing make you any less real? Perhaps to come from nothing is nothing more than a prerequisite of being real. As in, you must come from nothing? If he created you, then you are real...that is how I'd work that logic, anyway.

Also, assuming there is a God, what is to make you think that you were created from nothing? Maybe God used some exotic mixture of...whatever the heck...to create you? I mean, there are plenty of logical arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God, but I think you're going about it all wrong.

[PsychoticEpisode]

If he created you, then you are real...that is how I'd work that logic, anyway.

I'd question that logic.

The something from nothing factor is a difficult concept to accept for theists and atheists alike. Whether you're talking God's origin or that of the universe.

Is a thought real? Sure I guess, but there is a difference between the thinker and the idea. The thinker is real in the conventional sense, made of substance & occupying space whereas the thought does neither. I was simply trying to emphasize that we are God's thoughts and if God is real then what does it make us? Essentially, if a causal God's ideas are manifest then we are of a different reality, something you alluded to.

For myself, there can only be one reality. If you believe God is real then that is reality. The only way God's reality and ours can work is if everything originated from the same beginning moment. Therefore we are no different than God as far as being real. We are not His thoughts.

I'm just trying to introduce something different into the age old arguments. Why couldn't everything have had the same origin? Theists can still believe in God & atheists can still not believe in God even if we all came from the same place. God could still exist but He would be drastically different than what is commonly portrayed. God just might be some smart guy laying claim to divine status. Then again He could be our idea.:D

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The question still stands...
You said it doesn't matter how powerful the being is.
How can you be so sure that a sufficiently powerful being coul dnot create something out of nothing?

Assuming the being does exist, that presumes that energy must also exist and some claim that energy is the fundamental aspcet of all matter.
What IS nothing, anyway.
If space existed for the being to exist in, does space itself have a fasbric of existence?

I think there are quite a few scenarios that could be reasonable, once you accept, if just for the sake of argument, that a creator God was the first thing to exist.

Nothing is NO THING. No matter, no light, no energy, no antimatter, no atoms, no protons or electrons, no quarks, no strange matter, no life, no souls or spirits, no gods, no black holes, no singularity, no anything.
Assuming 1 being exists doesn't assume energy also exists but if we start with that, it means SOME THING exists other than that being. The being uses that energy to "create".
No, space does not have a fabric. Space isn't made of anything. It's simply the 3D area in which things exist. Saying space is made of something is saying area is made of something.

[one_raven]

Nothing is NO THING. No matter, no light, no energy, no antimatter, no atoms, no protons or electrons, no quarks, no strange matter, no life, no souls or spirits, no gods, no black holes, no singularity, no anything.
Then that's a simple, pointless contradiction, because if nothing existed, that one being could not exist.
If that one being did exist, then it had to exist somewhere - therfore spoace existed.

No, space does not have a fabric. Space isn't made of anything. It's simply the 3D area in which things exist. Saying space is made of something is saying area is made of something.
Prove it.

Assuming 1 being exists doesn't assume energy also exists but if we start with that, it means SOME THING exists other than that being.
Of course it does.


"The Universe" implies all that exists, but we couldn't possibly know all that exists, so the term is rather silly and no different than postulating a God - at the very least, it could be a misnomer.
Given that, there is no way we can know whether we live in a snow-dome of sorts and God could hold "The Universe" in thepalm of his hand.
If you place stuff in an empty container, that is creating matter, from the perspective of the inside of the snow-dome universe.
Those who claim nothing existed before the "Big Bang" are rather silly and deluded, in my opinion.

[one_raven]

No matter how powerful a being may be, they can't get something from nothing.

You never answered...

Can you qualify this statement?

[lightgigantic]

What I tell ya. The story of God isn't as simple as it once was. I'm sure during the last few thousand years that the ordinary slob spent countless sleepless nights worrying about God's eternal contingent potency. God better start worrying about our intelligence lest we find out about Him.
its kind of amusing the way you inflate things


LG, I'm happy that you're getting a chance to access the glossary of terms book that's been collecting dust on your bookshelf.
I think its time you started worrying about your intelligence



Yaayyy! What problem? There's a problem?
:o

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Nothing is NO THING. No matter, no light, no energy, no antimatter, no atoms, no protons or electrons, no quarks, no strange matter, no life, no souls or spirits, no gods, no black holes, no singularity, no anything. ”

one raven --- Then that's a simple, pointless contradiction, because if nothing existed, that one being could not exist.
If that one being did exist, then it had to exist somewhere - therfore spoace existed.

====The OP strongly implies nothing exists except 1 being. You thought I blocked the discussion by saying 1st we need to prove god exists. Now you don't accept the OP for the purpose of discussion?


“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
No, space does not have a fabric. Space isn't made of anything. It's simply the 3D area in which things exist. Saying space is made of something is saying area is made of something. ”

one raven --- Prove it.

====Prove what???


“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Assuming 1 being exists doesn't assume energy also exists but if we start with that, it means SOME THING exists other than that being. ”

one raven --- Of course it does.

====HUH???


one raven --- "The Universe" implies all that exists, but we couldn't possibly know all that exists, so the term is rather silly and no different than postulating a God - at the very least, it could be a misnomer.

====The Universe implies all that exists within this plane. It could be that all we presently "see" is the whole universe but we have no way of knowing & it seems extremely unlikely. It was once thought the Milky Way was all there is. Maybe in 20 years, we'll see galaxies 60 billion light years away & in 50 years we'll see things 800 trillion light years away. Perhaps the universe consists of a googol of cosmi, 1 of which is what we now call the universe & the closest other cosmi to ours is 444 trillion googolplex light years away & we'll never see it in a billion years. For the foreseeable future, at the least, applying the universe to what we can detect is rather silly.

one raven --- Given that, there is no way we can know whether we live in a snow-dome of sorts and God could hold "The Universe" in thepalm of his hand.
If you place stuff in an empty container, that is creating matter, from the perspective of the inside of the snow-dome universe.

====Perspective has nothing to do with it. Either something exists or nothing exists. Either 1 being & nothing else exists or 1 being & something else exists. Regardless of whether matter is coming from a parallel universe or a higher universe that ours popped out of or whatever 1 might come up with. Either something exists other than the 1 being or it doesn't. If we detect matter coming into this universe from a reverse black hole, it would be silly to say it's being created.

one raven --- Those who claim nothing existed before the "Big Bang" are rather silly and deluded, in my opinion

====I could not agree more. Except I'd say it's ABSURD. And I wouldn’t say “in my opinion”.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

one raven --- 2.) Perhaps the building blocks always existed, and God was the one to get the ball rolling. Perhaps many things - that's the point of these discussions, in my opinion.

====Those building blocks are not nothing. Many things are not nothing.

one raven --- Imagine, for example, there was nothing but an infinite sea of an infinite number of the one fundamental particle, just watiting for the first spark of energy.
That first spark of energy would come from God's consciousness.

====That 1st spark of energy is part of god. An infinite sea of infinite fundamental particles is not nothing.

one raven --- Assuming the being does exist, that presumes that energy must also exist

====That energy is not nothing.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Off topic remarks coming...read at own risk!

its kind of amusing the way you inflate things........
I think its time you started worrying about your intelligence.

I'll start worrying about my intelligence when theists start making sense.

For instance take smoke as a contingent potency of fire. There is no question of smoke unless there is fire (so it is one with fire), yet smoke displays qualities that are distinct from fire - eg you can't cook with it - (so it is different from fire)

Where is the smoke from the Sun? Where is the fire in deep ocean vents(smokers).

You're hung up on proverbial philosophical linquistics. I know it makes you feel smart to be able to exhibit your use of analogy, similes & metaphor but sometimes I wonder if you could just go beyond that for even a moment. I'd like to hear one idea from you that isn't contained in your database of things you know(of).

Lg, my idea is simple. God, should He exist, came into being with everything else. A natural birth I suppose.

Are you going to tell me there is no evidence of this?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Oh COME ON! Theists make sense. Sometimes. Ummmm ... 17% of the time.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Oh COME ON! Theists make sense. Sometimes. Ummmm ... 17% of the time.

That statistic is only relevant when one theist talks to another.

[JDawg]

I'd question that logic.

The something from nothing factor is a difficult concept to accept for theists and atheists alike. Whether you're talking God's origin or that of the universe.

Is a thought real? Sure I guess, but there is a difference between the thinker and the idea. The thinker is real in the conventional sense, made of substance & occupying space whereas the thought does neither. I was simply trying to emphasize that we are God's thoughts and if God is real then what does it make us? Essentially, if a causal God's ideas are manifest then we are of a different reality, something you alluded to.

For myself, there can only be one reality. If you believe God is real then that is reality. The only way God's reality and ours can work is if everything originated from the same beginning moment. Therefore we are no different than God as far as being real. We are not His thoughts.

I'm just trying to introduce something different into the age old arguments. Why couldn't everything have had the same origin? Theists can still believe in God & atheists can still not believe in God even if we all came from the same place. God could still exist but He would be drastically different than what is commonly portrayed. God just might be some smart guy laying claim to divine status. Then again He could be our idea.:D

And in reality, the thought is real. You experience it as something other than reality, but in truth it is the result of electric and chemical actions in the brain. So yes, the thought does take up conventional space, and is real in the conventional sense.

But I'm failing to see what you're getting at...are you asking atheists and theists to get along? I mean, listen, there is a fundamental difference between theism and atheism, and it involves not only the nature of our existence, but how we came to be. That's a bridge you cannot gap without converting.

[one_raven]

...are you asking atheists and theists to get along? I mean, listen, there is a fundamental difference between theism and atheism, and it involves not only the nature of our existence, but how we came to be. That's a bridge you cannot gap without converting.

That's absolutely asinine.
Atheists and theist can't get along because they have fundamentally different belief systems?
So, Christians and Hindus can't get along either?
Republicans and Democrats can't get along?

What small-minded bullshit.

[JDawg]

That's absolutely asinine.
Atheists and theist can't get along because they have fundamentally different belief systems?
So, Christians and Hindus can't get along either?
Republicans and Democrats can't get along?

What small-minded bullshit.

Wow, first of all, fuck you.

Second, that's not how I meant it. He was saying, if I was reading it correctly, that theists and atheists should agree on the origins. That's why he said "why can't we all come from the same place" comment, right? If I'm mistaken, I'm mistaken, but I obviously didn't mean that theists and atheists can't get along. I meant it in the argumentative sense.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Theists can't get along with me.

[PsychoticEpisode]

But I'm failing to see what you're getting at...are you asking atheists and theists to get along?

That would be nice but no. I would like the two sides stop their nonsense. Believe in God if you wish but for both camps it has to end right there, no need to go further.

As for reality....What I'm trying to say is that this is it, one reality. You can twist it and bend it or shape it anyway you want. You can even suggest or hypothesize other realities but we cannot ever find them because, and this is simple, once we are there it is our reality. Wherever we go, call it Heaven or Hell.... in whatever shape or form, call it life form or soul...we are always in our reality.

If God is to exist then He is in our reality. Even if He can magically communicate with us from His supposed reality to ours, once the connection is made that reality becomes ours. For us there is but one reality.

Early explorers were once thought of as Gods by certain peoples they met along the way. Gods from another reality you might say but in the end it was all the same.

God is only mysterious because He hasn't showed up yet.

[SnakeLord]

Believe in God if you wish but for both camps it has to end right there, no need to go further.


Unfortunately, for the christians at least, there is a need to go further - that's where all the problems come from. I doubt one person here really cares what anyone else believes privately. Christians especially don't know how to keep it private.

[SlowDeath]

God seems to me to be a greater deity than I first imagined.

The more I learn, the more I contemplate existence and the greater a being I see God to be.

My reasoning is that God may be a sun to an uncivilized native but once educated it would no longer be a God to him.

Some of what I once thought of as Godlike actions I am now able to do myself so MY GOD is a far greater being to me than I imagined previously.

As far as others beliefs I really do not care too much about. When I am buying my petrol from a china man I do not care who he believes in as long as his till gives me correct change.

My two pence worth...

[JDawg]

That would be nice but no. I would like the two sides stop their nonsense. Believe in God if you wish but for both camps it has to end right there, no need to go further.

As for reality....What I'm trying to say is that this is it, one reality. You can twist it and bend it or shape it anyway you want. You can even suggest or hypothesize other realities but we cannot ever find them because, and this is simple, once we are there it is our reality. Wherever we go, call it Heaven or Hell.... in whatever shape or form, call it life form or soul...we are always in our reality.

If God is to exist then He is in our reality. Even if He can magically communicate with us from His supposed reality to ours, once the connection is made that reality becomes ours. For us there is but one reality.

Early explorers were once thought of as Gods by certain peoples they met along the way. Gods from another reality you might say but in the end it was all the same.

God is only mysterious because He hasn't showed up yet.

Yeah...um...you have fun with that...

[lightgigantic]

PsychoticEpisode



Where is the smoke from the Sun? Where is the fire in deep ocean vents(smokers).
so you want to argue that the sun or smokers do not have contingent potencies?
:rolleyes:



Lg, my idea is simple. God, should He exist, came into being with everything else. A natural birth I suppose.

Are you going to tell me there is no evidence of this?
no need
Its obvious that we are simply discussing an issue of theory (I mean its not like you are seriously interested in applying yourself to evidencing god's nature ... rather you feel more comfortable discussing issues of logic that surround the issue)
At this point, I feel the question is "On what basis do you make this premise?" since the dominant premise for god is the exact opposite (namely that everything came into being because of god ... much like smoke comes into being because of fire, or sunlight comes into being because of the sun or clouds of vapourized water comes into being from smokers etc etc)

[PsychoticEpisode]

so you want to argue that the sun or smokers do not have contingent potencies?:rolleyes:

It's just that I've never seen sunsmoke nor do I expect to. I've never had a campfire beneath the lake either.

Its obvious that we are simply discussing an issue of theory (I mean its not like you are seriously interested in applying yourself to evidencing god's nature ... rather you feel more comfortable discussing issues of logic that surround the issue)
At this point, I feel the question is "On what basis do you make this premise?" since the dominant premise for god is the exact opposite (namely that everything came into being because of god ... much like smoke comes into being because of fire, or sunlight comes into being because of the sun or clouds of vapourized water comes into being from smokers etc etc

It goes hand in hand with my reality rant. If me or you can access the other reality(ies) then it is still our reality. There is no such thing as a separate reality for me or you. However if God is in His own little reality, then in order to keep it He can't leave it, especially to come here. If He does then He has made a connection to us thus negating the separation. Heaven, hell, soul land or whatever is in store for us is simply nothing special as far as serparate realities go. If I or you can get there then it is our reality. Same for God, ours is His, there is no distinction. Ergo God, man and the universe will share the same beginning, the beginning of it all.

[lightgigantic]

It's just that I've never seen sunsmoke nor do I expect to. I've never had a campfire beneath the lake either.



It goes hand in hand with my reality rant. If me or you can access the other reality(ies) then it is still our reality. There is no such thing as a separate reality for me or you.
there are however contingent realities - like smoke from fire, heat from the sun, etc etc

However if God is in His own little reality, then in order to keep it He can't leave it, especially to come here.
why not?
Its kind of like saying that you can't place a fire in a smokey room

If He does then He has made a connection to us thus negating the separation.
hence contingency enables simultaneous oneness and difference

Heaven, hell, soul land or whatever is in store for us is simply nothing special as far as serparate realities go. If I or you can get there then it is our reality. Same for God, ours is His, there is no distinction. Ergo God, man and the universe will share the same beginning, the beginning of it all.
linear time is also a contingent potency of god

[PsychoticEpisode]

LG, why don't you think God could have emanated from the beginning? Having nothing to do with creation would probably make God more believable

[lightgigantic]

LG, why don't you think God could have emanated from the beginning? Having nothing to do with creation would probably make God more believable
Having a god that cannot surmount inherent difficulties posed by linear time makes for something more unbelievable ..... mainly because you have a god that is simply like you and me (ie fallible)

[PsychoticEpisode]

I don't think God should have any contingent potencies. Why would He need them? If He is all powerful and what not why would anything labelled contingent be associated with Him.? I think knowing it all kind of foregoes any contingencies, whether something happens or not should have already been considered. By indicating God has potencies contingent upon what may or may not happen suggests that God has not yet reached His full potential and that is purely theoretical also.

Are you saying God has a hidden reserve of power He is prepared to use if the situation dictates? This would not make sense. Yes, an unused arsenal still has potential but for God everything should be known to Him and warehousing His strengths for eventualities that may or may not occur seems rather odd. Contingent potency is hardly a term meant for a God in my estimation. God's potential should be fixed but you think that just in case He needs more to deal with an unseen(?) happenstance He is able to draw more if required.

LG, you make God seem like one of us everyday.

[JDawg]

I think it would be kind of hard to assume anything about any supreme being's potential attributes, considering that, as far as we know, it would have to exist separately from our reality. That is to say, a creator wouldn't have a house on Pluto; it would have to be in a realm where the creation of a universe is possible, so all of the laws could potentially be vastly different, which means that the limitations of a being could be vastly different.

I guess it boils down to the fact that you draw something when you don't know what it looks like.

[lightgigantic]

I don't think God should have any contingent potencies. Why would He need them? If He is all powerful and what not why would anything labelled contingent be associated with Him.?
anything that has power (even a light bulb) has contingent potencies

I think knowing it all kind of foregoes any contingencies, whether something happens or not should have already been considered. By indicating God has potencies contingent upon what may or may not happen suggests that God has not yet reached His full potential and that is purely theoretical also.
I'm not sure you understand the implications of contingency. For instance, suppose a light bulb had consciousness, it could control its contingent potencies according to its desire (ie it could illuminate an enclosed room or shroud it in darkness).
The very nature of a potency being contingent means that it is controlled by something beyond itself (for instance, the phenomena of illumination in a dark room is controlled by the light bulb)

Are you saying God has a hidden reserve of power He is prepared to use if the situation dictates?
because all power (even that of lightbulbs) is contingent on god, he has resources at his command that we cannot dream of approaching. Its not really a case of it being hidden, or god having a "reserve" of power on hand for difficult circumstances - rather it is a case of god being designated as that person whom all power is contingent upon.

This would not make sense. Yes, an unused arsenal still has potential but for God everything should be known to Him and warehousing His strengths for eventualities that may or may not occur seems rather odd. Contingent potency is hardly a term meant for a God in my estimation. God's potential should be fixed but you think that just in case He needs more to deal with an unseen(?) happenstance He is able to draw more if required.

LG, you make God seem like one of us everyday.
on the contrary, designating god as something that has no contingent potencies makes for a god that is less potent than a clod of dirt

[lightgigantic]

I think it would be kind of hard to assume anything about any supreme being's potential attributes, considering that, as far as we know, it would have to exist separately from our reality. That is to say, a creator wouldn't have a house on Pluto; it would have to be in a realm where the creation of a universe is possible, so all of the laws could potentially be vastly different, which means that the limitations of a being could be vastly different.

I guess it boils down to the fact that you draw something when you don't know what it looks like.
actually it is explained that there are three categories of god's potencies

one is the external energy (or the "material" world of inert matter)
another is the internal energy (or the "spiritual" world of eternity, knowledge and bliss)
and the last is the marginal energy (or the separated part and parcels of god, the living entities with minute independence ... who sometimes find themselves in the internal and sometimes in the external energy according to their desire and independence)

For god, there is no distinction between these energies - IOW engineering a personal abode (aka something associated within the internal energy) on pluto (something associated with the external energy) is easily tenable. In fact that is how one essentially makes spiritual advancement - with out fail we come to this world, we come to this world in a mood of exploiting god's energy (hence we get given the material world to play with) - when we realize the futility of that and start utilizing the external energy in the service of god rather than ourselves, it qualifies for the internal energy.

Hence

SB 10.87.22 When this human body is used for Your devotional service, it acts as one's self, friend and beloved. But unfortunately, although You always show mercy to the conditioned souls and affectionately help them in every way, and although You are their true Self, people in general fail to delight in You. Instead they commit spiritual suicide by worshiping illusion. Alas, because they persistently hope for success in their devotion to the unreal, they continue to wander about this greatly fearful world, assuming various degraded bodies.

[JDawg]

actually it is explained that there are three categories of god's potencies

By who?

[lightgigantic]

By who?
it is repeatedly referenced in the vedas

eg

SB 7.3.34 Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme, who in his unlimited, unmanifested form has expanded the cosmic manifestation, the form of the totality of the universe. He possesses external and internal energies and the mixed energy called the marginal potency, which consists of all the living entities.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

God was created in the image of man.

[PsychoticEpisode]

it is repeatedly referenced in the vedas

eg

SB 7.3.34 Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme, who in his unlimited, unmanifested form has expanded the cosmic manifestation, the form of the totality of the universe. He possesses external and internal energies and the mixed energy called the marginal potency, which consists of all the living entities.

Well, geez, who's going to take the word of the skeptic when its written down so eloquently in an ancient manuscript. To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances. That shouldn't detract from the fact that He must have taken the time to scratch out His words of wisdom on a slab of stone somewhere. That should be sufficient to erase any doubts one may have of the validity of such documents. :rolleyes:

Makes no sense for God to enter the technological age of mass media since one should be able to believe the age old truths as gospel, despite the enormous opportunity to end any doubt whatsoever. We don't need any help deciding who our God is because the Holy One has made it so clear, just so we can avoid confusion. :rolleyes:

As for those who study the stained papyra, translating text as if they were the Rosetta Stone of scripture, a special honor for being allowed to be so close to God. Surely such dedication automatically qualifies them as the purveyor of divine intelligence. We should be humbled to be in such company. :rolleyes:

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

There's an old movie about god speaking to humanity thru their TVs.

[PsychoticEpisode]

There's an old movie about god speaking to humanity thru their TVs.

Not sure of how people perceived TV back in its inception. I can see those who railed against it in such a way that it was a tool of the devil. There would also be those who saw it as a great opportunity for God to take advantage of this new technology.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If god meant man to have TVs, they'd be growing on trees.

[PsychoticEpisode]

If god meant man to have TVs, they'd be growing on trees.

I think they once did, scripture has God talking to our forefathers via a burning bush. Just didn't catch on.:D

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Welllll if that was a radio with a brilliant metal shine ... ... ...

[PsychoticEpisode]

Welllll if that was a radio with a brilliant metal shine ... ... ...

OK, Mr. Von Daniken;)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

UH OH I'll have to change my user name now.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Our simplistic bantering reveals the danger of entrusting religious authority with the job of deciphering religious text. For many, their word is as if God Himself was at the podium. It is just mindboggling to think of how many people in the world take their words to heart. If the Pope were suddenly to decree that TV's or radios were really the 'burning bushes' I wonder how many people would believe it.

We're really off topic. But in some ways the 'burning bush-tv' comparison is microcosmic of how we view reality. If I were to venture back in time and stand beside someone listening to a burning bush talk would I be as eager as he to accept it as something divine. Not a chance. Is it really on fire, is there no source of sound evident, plus a number of things I would check and even then I would be skeptical because I know that the mind can be fooled.

I am in the same reality as the other guy but we view it totally different. In this case I would assume that I am correct in my being dubious. My fellow witness would claim God and I could be relatively certain it isn't. My knowledge, gained through scientific endeavor, has enabled me to see our reality in more clear detail than that of the ancient. I would have no doubt that if it was God performing these antics than He is in my reality or vice versa. When God connects to our reality is He is not really connecting because He, me & we are all in this together. Other realities should they exist have no bearing on this one since neither God nor we can leave it.

[lightgigantic]

God was created in the image of man.
god begs to differ
:o

[lightgigantic]

Well, geez, who's going to take the word of the skeptic when its written down so eloquently in an ancient manuscript.
kind of bizarre how you cannot even join a discussion about the how aspects of god's nature are categorized according to scripture without drumming home your party line.

To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances.
To be honest, the only way you can say that statement with full confidence is if you having positive evidence (or even simply the means for verifying the positive evidence) that god does not exist.
So do you have it?
Yes or No?

That shouldn't detract from the fact that He must have taken the time to scratch out His words of wisdom on a slab of stone somewhere. That should be sufficient to erase any doubts one may have of the validity of such documents.
I don't think that you are so much an atheist but a person who has unresolved anger issues with christians.
:o


Makes no sense for God to enter the technological age of mass media since one should be able to believe the age old truths as gospel, despite the enormous opportunity to end any doubt whatsoever. We don't need any help deciding who our God is because the Holy One has made it so clear, just so we can avoid confusion.
ironically, its called the information age, as opposed to, say, knowledge age

As for those who study the stained papyra, translating text as if they were the Rosetta Stone of scripture, a special honor for being allowed to be so close to God.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that equates mere skills of translation with comprehension.

Surely such dedication automatically qualifies them as the purveyor of divine intelligence. We should be humbled to be in such company. :rolleyes:
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that suggests those who can translate scripture are (more) dear to god.

[PsychoticEpisode]

kind of bizarre how you cannot even join a discussion about the how aspects of god's nature are categorized according to scripture without drumming home your party line.

I think my position on scripture is abundantly clear.

To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances. ”

To be honest, the only way you can say that statement with full confidence is if you having positive evidence (or even simply the means for verifying the positive evidence) that god does not exist.
So do you have it?
Yes or No?

To a God or a surrogate God? I see God as parchment. Is that a yes?

don't think that you are so much an atheist but a person who has unresolved anger issues with christians.

Are you the guru of psychoanalysis? You're deciphering my words as if they were my surrogate.:D I know once you start it's hard to stop.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that equates mere skills of translation with comprehension

If my religion depended on it, I would find one in no time.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that suggests those who can translate scripture are (more) dear to god.

same as above

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic Episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
kind of bizarre how you cannot even join a discussion about the how aspects of god's nature are categorized according to scripture without drumming home your party line.
”
I think my position on scripture is abundantly clear.
sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand

“
To be honest, the old parchment is God's surrogate, since God doesn't bother making personal appearances.

To be honest, the only way you can say that statement with full confidence is if you having positive evidence (or even simply the means for verifying the positive evidence) that god does not exist.
So do you have it?
Yes or No?
”
To a God or a surrogate God? I see God as parchment. Is that a yes?
unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....

“
don't think that you are so much an atheist but a person who has unresolved anger issues with christians.
”
Are you the guru of psychoanalysis? You're deciphering my words as if they were my surrogate. I know once you start it's hard to stop.
no great introspection required
just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity

“
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that equates mere skills of translation with comprehension
”
If my religion depended on it, I would find one in no time.

“
I think you would be hard pressed to find a scriptural quote that suggests those who can translate scripture are (more) dear to god.
”
same as above
given that your atheist argument against religion (whether or not that is your "religion" ... well we will save that topic for another occasion perhaps ....) depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.
:shrug:

[PsychoticEpisode]

sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand

I'm not the scripture quoting type. I believe you started it.

unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....

Maybe not but it is the only thing you've got. God speaks to you about life via ink so He is closer to being parchment than anything else.

just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity

And yours compliment your religion. Not really sure of yours really. Sorry, never bothered to ask. Are you in some offshoot sect, a cow worshipper, untouchable perhaps?

given that your atheist argument against religion depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.

If I had a religion with a bible I could find a quote for any topic. Religious folk do it all the time. What's so unusual?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Psychotic Episode

sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand

unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....

no great introspection required
just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity


given that your atheist argument against religion (whether or not that is your "religion" ... well we will save that topic for another occasion perhaps ....) depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.

just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of The Society Of MakeBelieve more often than not wind up being beratings of cruel & ridiculous fairy tales

since your notion of makebelieve is not even one makebelievists advocate.

[lightgigantic]

Pscychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sure
but what is bizarre is how you bring it to bear when its not an issue of the discussion at hand
”
I'm not the scripture quoting type. I believe you started it.
for as long as you want to launch arguments against the conclusions of scripture, it could be in your interests to be a bit more familiar with them

“
unfortunately corrupting the terms of definition (eg "god = parchment") doesn't qualify as positive evidence .....
”
Maybe not but it is the only thing you've got. .
what makes you say that?

“
just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of religion more often than not wind up being beratings of xtianity
”
And yours compliment your religion.
actually 9 times out of 10 I merely talk of general guidelines for theism

Not really sure of yours really. Sorry, never bothered to ask. Are you in some offshoot sect, a cow worshipper, untouchable perhaps?
its not so important to discuss at this point
we're talking about theism in general

“
given that your atheist argument against religion depends on it, it seems you are offering some sort of strawman argument, since your notion of theism is not even one theists advocate.
”
If I had a religion with a bible I could find a quote for any topic. Religious folk do it all the time. What's so unusual?
hence persons of close to astute intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary

[lightgigantic]

just merely noting how your talks of the pitfalls of The Society Of MakeBelieve more often than not wind up being beratings of cruel & ridiculous fairy tales

since your notion of makebelieve is not even one makebelievists advocate.
your noting is noted
;)

[PsychoticEpisode]

for as long as you want to launch arguments against the conclusions of scripture, it could be in your interests to be a bit more familiar with them

Give me a library of scripture and it wouldn't make a difference. I merely criticize their use and the high likelihood of the user finding whatever they want to discern from a passage.

hence persons of close to astute** intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary

**LG...you spelled statue wrong.

[lightgigantic]

Give me a library of scripture and it wouldn't make a difference. I merely criticize their use and the high likelihood of the user finding whatever they want to discern from a passage.

therefore

hence persons of close to astute intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary
:o

[PsychoticEpisode]

therefore

hence persons of close to astute intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary
:o

Exactly, too bad they're only close to being astute.

hence there is a lack of ingenuity within the religious world order.

[lightgigantic]

Exactly, too bad they're only close to being astute.

]
I think you miss the point
its fundamental to even the mere beginning of discussion of theistic topics
what to speak of practice

[PsychoticEpisode]

I think you miss the point
its fundamental to even the mere beginning of discussion of theistic topics
what to speak of practice

hence persons of close to astute intelligence tend to valid scriptural opinions with not only scripture but scriptural commentary

Possibly, I had trouble with the word valid, did you mean validate?

[lightgigantic]

Possibly, I had trouble with the word valid, did you mean validate?
yes
sorry
my bad