What God Could Be
- Thread starter Scott Myers
- Start date
(Q) said:
I believe there are several lives, so everyone will see the positive side. Though it is the same self who goes through all these experiences... the sins of the world...
---
Life never ends. Death is the other side of life. A tree inhales the life from the leaves at autumn, and the empty covers will drop and die, but only the empty cover! The life which has animated the leaves rests in the tree and flows out in the spring, again outwardly, and the life dresses itself in new matter, new leaves. Only the external covers change, not life. Life continues to exist because it has always existed.
People call it "God" when the life breathes the life into a person. Like with the leaves, life breathes in the life from the body and person, and dresses itself with a new body, in an everlasting rhythm.
I have tried to see me in the mirror, but I have never seen this "I", which is the invisible life, which animates my body. I can only see two eyes, two black holes, through which "I" look into the world. The self remains invisible, I can only see a manifestation of me, a mask.
From where will I look at the world when these eyes are shut? From two other eyes!
Scott, Thanks for taking up the idea, I am heartened to see that it has some merit!! 
Now:
"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed does exist if only we allow that definition to exist."
This specultation could also read:
"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed could exist if only we allow that definition to exist."
The one area that I think needs to be clarified is that:
For God to exist must he be able to maintain a single minded focus?
Must God be able to read this post for example?
Is it essential that for God to retain the title of God that he be capable of single minded attention and focuss? In other words does he have to have a human styled perception with it's ability to focuss on a single point in space?
If one removes this need for single focuss and accepts that God is multiplistic in focuss thus rendered impotent of action because of the inability to focus his powers then is what is defined able to be called God?
"He may have all the knowledge, all the awareness and all the power but his inability to focuss his mind on any of those things renders him as ineffective in this reality"
Now to the issue of perfection.
If I have a vessel that can hold my coffee, allowing me to store and drink from it, is that vessel not perfect for the job of storing my coffee and allowing me to drink from it?
If I want something to cut my steak and I have a steak knife that allows me to do so is not that steak knife perfect for the job I require?
Is not perfection of utility, perfection?
The other question I wanted to raise was:
What if God has yet to evolve into a single focussed entity. What if he has yet to become the omnipotent single focussed individual?
Is there a possibility that a conscious, single minded God may yet evolve from this universe?
If so what would he have to be to lay claim to the title of God?
Now:
"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed does exist if only we allow that definition to exist."
This specultation could also read:
"If one could simply put down all prior conceptions of what God is and contemplate on what God could be one can see that God indeed could exist if only we allow that definition to exist."
The one area that I think needs to be clarified is that:
For God to exist must he be able to maintain a single minded focus?
Must God be able to read this post for example?
Is it essential that for God to retain the title of God that he be capable of single minded attention and focuss? In other words does he have to have a human styled perception with it's ability to focuss on a single point in space?
If one removes this need for single focuss and accepts that God is multiplistic in focuss thus rendered impotent of action because of the inability to focus his powers then is what is defined able to be called God?
"He may have all the knowledge, all the awareness and all the power but his inability to focuss his mind on any of those things renders him as ineffective in this reality"
Now to the issue of perfection.
If I have a vessel that can hold my coffee, allowing me to store and drink from it, is that vessel not perfect for the job of storing my coffee and allowing me to drink from it?
If I want something to cut my steak and I have a steak knife that allows me to do so is not that steak knife perfect for the job I require?
Is not perfection of utility, perfection?
The other question I wanted to raise was:
What if God has yet to evolve into a single focussed entity. What if he has yet to become the omnipotent single focussed individual?
Is there a possibility that a conscious, single minded God may yet evolve from this universe?
If so what would he have to be to lay claim to the title of God?
*Situations vacant:
Leader to leader magazine 2005
Wanted
A God for all occassions
Some one to fill a position of the highest responsibility.
Must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound,
Must be stronger that a speeding locomotive
Must be faster than a speeding bullet.
Must be able to decipher the book of revelations.
If you feel you have what is required please
send application to
godrequired@santaclaus.com
quoting reference number
7666.7666.7
Leader to leader magazine 2005
Wanted
A God for all occassions
Some one to fill a position of the highest responsibility.
Must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound,
Must be stronger that a speeding locomotive
Must be faster than a speeding bullet.
Must be able to decipher the book of revelations.
If you feel you have what is required please
send application to
godrequired@santaclaus.com
quoting reference number
7666.7666.7
*this advertisment is entirely ficticious. All characters portrayed or alluded to are not representative of any known actually living or dead persons.
Scott Myers:
No, I do believe a logical God can exist, actually, just not a logical Christian conception of God. Now, I do mean objective reality, as in, the reality all around us, the only "reality" worth speaking of. By virtue of God's omnipresence, God is certainly partially measurable, certainly has partially measurable depth, and is definitely able to be touched. To touch anything inr eality, to be part -of- reality, is to touch God himself by virtue of omnipresence.
Spacetime is certainly omnipresent in the physical universe, but if there exists something beyond the universe which does not share in spacetime, we'd have to conclude that spacetime not omnipresent, nor the ultimate expression of existence. That being said, I find it hard to imagine energy - which spacetime itself is made up - not existing outside of the universe, if there is such a thing as outside this universe.
A question: In what manner do you refer to theoretical conceptions of "spacetime breaking down"? Do you mean the spiralling towards entropy which might only be solved through a Big Crunch?
Truthseeker:
Since almost all perfect attributes that I can think off the top of my head, require attributes of infinity, I would actually claim that no one can attain to perfection, one must -be- perfect. One can never reach infinity through incremental addition or any other method. One must -be- infinity itself to be infinite.
Ellion:
See my reply to Truthseeker for my answer.
c7ityi_:
I never claimed that God had free-will, or even a will at all, but I ask you to define what a "perfect action" would be?
Unsubstantiated statement if you're refering to Idealism with "everything is in the mind". See my refutation of the metaphysical system under "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism". However, fi you are not, yes, it is quite impossible to be conscious of something outside one's consciousness, until you gain sensory preception of it, or one uses the power of imagination to create it from thought.
Proof?
Proof?
Why does life need a force in order to be animate? Ever consider that life arises from the emergent behaviour of atomic and molecular connections arranged in specific relationships?
Perhaps there is no "invisible I".
Have you any proof for your reincarnation theories?
QuantumQuack:
Would God even need to if he is omniscient?
Can another cup hold it better? Can another knife cut it better?
No, I do believe a logical God can exist, actually, just not a logical Christian conception of God. Now, I do mean objective reality, as in, the reality all around us, the only "reality" worth speaking of. By virtue of God's omnipresence, God is certainly partially measurable, certainly has partially measurable depth, and is definitely able to be touched. To touch anything inr eality, to be part -of- reality, is to touch God himself by virtue of omnipresence.
Spacetime is certainly omnipresent in the physical universe, but if there exists something beyond the universe which does not share in spacetime, we'd have to conclude that spacetime not omnipresent, nor the ultimate expression of existence. That being said, I find it hard to imagine energy - which spacetime itself is made up - not existing outside of the universe, if there is such a thing as outside this universe.
A question: In what manner do you refer to theoretical conceptions of "spacetime breaking down"? Do you mean the spiralling towards entropy which might only be solved through a Big Crunch?
Truthseeker:
Since almost all perfect attributes that I can think off the top of my head, require attributes of infinity, I would actually claim that no one can attain to perfection, one must -be- perfect. One can never reach infinity through incremental addition or any other method. One must -be- infinity itself to be infinite.
Ellion:
See my reply to Truthseeker for my answer.
c7ityi_:
I never claimed that God had free-will, or even a will at all, but I ask you to define what a "perfect action" would be?
Unsubstantiated statement if you're refering to Idealism with "everything is in the mind". See my refutation of the metaphysical system under "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism". However, fi you are not, yes, it is quite impossible to be conscious of something outside one's consciousness, until you gain sensory preception of it, or one uses the power of imagination to create it from thought.
Proof?
Proof?
Why does life need a force in order to be animate? Ever consider that life arises from the emergent behaviour of atomic and molecular connections arranged in specific relationships?
Perhaps there is no "invisible I".
Have you any proof for your reincarnation theories?
QuantumQuack:
Would God even need to if he is omniscient?
Can another cup hold it better? Can another knife cut it better?
To be potent he would need to be able to focus. With out the ability to focuss his attention he woudl simply be infinite and impotent.
well I guess if the cup was leaking another better cup would be needed....
And if the knife was blunt then maybe a sharper knife woudl be the go.....the question of course is about the perfection of utility.
This computer I am typing on may be old and slow and a little troubled [ hangs quite frequently] however if this letter appears when and where it should then it has performed perfectly in it's utility. in other words the job has been accomplished [ might have taken awhile but it is accomplished]
Perfection of utility in reference to God.
The universe has been created or is created.....perfection of utility. Could a better universe be created? Most likely.....but in so far as being able to be created it has been thus utility of action is perfect.
Is the universe apparently on auto pilot, in that it is automatically evolving with out intervention directly from God.?...hmmmmm....if so, is this not perfection of utility.
I believe there are several lives, so everyone will see the positive side.
That is a very nice fantasy, which would leave one with warm fuzzies all over, especially when their starving, their bodies riddled with disease, living in a war torn country.
Or, so you would make us believe.
That is a very nice fantasy, which would leave one with warm fuzzies all over, especially when their starving, their bodies riddled with disease, living in a war torn country.
Or, so you would make us believe.
Quantum Quack:
Perhaps one can say that God's focus is everywhere direct at the same time, by virtue of omnipresence?
If a job is truly accomplished, then yes, it has been done so perfectly. An example of an extremely limitd perfection, but yes. However, if one takes into consideration the notion of efficiency, then one eventually comes to realize that perfection is utterly impossible, as something could always do it faster, by virtue of infinitely small points of time.
It depends on what the mission criteria was for creating and sustaining the universe, but yes, as it is there, then the universe is perfect in the sense that it fills its duty of being there, if that is all it does.
Perhaps one can say that God's focus is everywhere direct at the same time, by virtue of omnipresence?
If a job is truly accomplished, then yes, it has been done so perfectly. An example of an extremely limitd perfection, but yes. However, if one takes into consideration the notion of efficiency, then one eventually comes to realize that perfection is utterly impossible, as something could always do it faster, by virtue of infinitely small points of time.
It depends on what the mission criteria was for creating and sustaining the universe, but yes, as it is there, then the universe is perfect in the sense that it fills its duty of being there, if that is all it does.
so we can agree that perfection can and does exist?
This is why I have been so pedantic, as most will say that perfection is an impossible concept. However as I have suggested perfection can be found if one has the perspective to see it.
This is why I have been so pedantic, as most will say that perfection is an impossible concept. However as I have suggested perfection can be found if one has the perspective to see it.
Quantum Quack:
Yes. Perfection not only exists in the ways I have asserted, but I'll allow for a "lesser" perfection of the "perfection of utility" which you speak of.
Yes. Perfection not only exists in the ways I have asserted, but I'll allow for a "lesser" perfection of the "perfection of utility" which you speak of.
Prince_James said:
A perfect action is an action done at the right place and at the right time.
You see yourself as "I" and I see myself as "I". So do the rest of the people in the world. Animals, plants and rocks also have the self in them, they're just not conscious of it because of the limits in their body.
Particles are also created by something. A cause cannot be visible. A visible thing can't be caused by another visible thing. Life does not arise from combination of particles, a manifestation of life arises from an invisible will to evolve...
---
Everything is in the "mind" (nothing to do with physical "brain") and everything is created by it. It needs no knowledge or senses to do anything, it is the present, invisible, creator of senses and knowledge (effects, illusions: things in the mind) It is nothing where everything comes from. It is nothing, so it is the source of everything. Nothing and everything are the same thing.
Besides, what makes you think "I" need a "body" in order to think for instance? What is a body? A thing in the mind. Where is the mind. Nowhere and everywhere.
(Q) said:
I think that's the most logical thing to believe. I don't believe it because it makes me feel good, infact, it makes me feel bad! I would rather want to dissapear after I die, but I don't think that's possible.
Last edited:
Sorry, I should reword my questions...Prince_James said:
Does God change?
c7ityi_:
First off, I've been meaning to say this: I love the Rikku icon.
How so?
But what does it say more than "cogito ergo sum"?
A cause cannot be visible? I've hit a baseball with ab at, before. I was the cause of that ball flying over the homerun wall. Would not this be a "visible cause"? Moreover, whilst particles are surely "created" by something, could not - and is it not more likely - that it is from naturalistic causes? And upon what foundation do you assert that life stems from an "invisible will to evolve"?
Riddle me this: Can you imagine a colour which you have never witnessed? That is, an entirely new colour, not a shade of a prior one? Not something which is a combination of the visible spectrum, but something totally different, such as "blork" or "norgozle"? If not, would not this point towards the incapacity of the mind to think of anything which it does not perceive first in the senses? How can it "create" the senses without knowing of something to sense? And, furthermore, why do you believe the way you do? What leads you to suspect this?
Is a body a thing in the mind? A body is perceived through sense, so fundementally, this points towards something external stimulating this, specifically as if I did not have sense, I would not know a thing. Moreover, what is thought but sensory preception rearranged? Is not thought the chief aspect of the mind?
Why so?
Truthseeker:
In that there are changes within an omnipresent God (planets moving, people talking, stars forming), then yes, God changes on that level. On an ultimate level, God is incapable of change. God could not cease to be perfect, or cease to be, or change his form. Part of being an infinite thing would be that it would take an infinite amount of time to change completely, or even partially. Since even a miniscule fraction of infinity is also infinity, nothing can change in infinity without taking another infinity to do so.
First off, I've been meaning to say this: I love the Rikku icon.
How so?
But what does it say more than "cogito ergo sum"?
A cause cannot be visible? I've hit a baseball with ab at, before. I was the cause of that ball flying over the homerun wall. Would not this be a "visible cause"? Moreover, whilst particles are surely "created" by something, could not - and is it not more likely - that it is from naturalistic causes? And upon what foundation do you assert that life stems from an "invisible will to evolve"?
Riddle me this: Can you imagine a colour which you have never witnessed? That is, an entirely new colour, not a shade of a prior one? Not something which is a combination of the visible spectrum, but something totally different, such as "blork" or "norgozle"? If not, would not this point towards the incapacity of the mind to think of anything which it does not perceive first in the senses? How can it "create" the senses without knowing of something to sense? And, furthermore, why do you believe the way you do? What leads you to suspect this?
Is a body a thing in the mind? A body is perceived through sense, so fundementally, this points towards something external stimulating this, specifically as if I did not have sense, I would not know a thing. Moreover, what is thought but sensory preception rearranged? Is not thought the chief aspect of the mind?
Why so?
Truthseeker:
In that there are changes within an omnipresent God (planets moving, people talking, stars forming), then yes, God changes on that level. On an ultimate level, God is incapable of change. God could not cease to be perfect, or cease to be, or change his form. Part of being an infinite thing would be that it would take an infinite amount of time to change completely, or even partially. Since even a miniscule fraction of infinity is also infinity, nothing can change in infinity without taking another infinity to do so.
Guys....
*sigh....
Ok. Just come here to talk about it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48481
*sigh....
Ok. Just come here to talk about it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48481
God doesn't change (at least not in the way we are used to think). I will say it again, in a more clear manner:Prince_James said:
layers of existance
Truthseeker:
Can you elaborate on the concept of layers of existence?
Can you elaborate on the concept of layers of existence?
Prince James:
It suggests to me that if God was perfect as you suggest then he is incapable of movement or the change that movement generates. Basically God is unable to act thus he is imperfect and totally paralysed.
The reasoning you are using if I am not mistaken if allowed to flow to it's ultimate conclusion will determine God to be perfectly imperfect.
Just as reality is imperfectly perfect.
Many years ago I spent much time looking at this issue of perfection and realised that perfection lies in the imperfect. This ties in with how suffering [ imperfection] is a necesssary fact of existance.
Now I ask you as a leading question, "Does God suffer?"
My answer would be yes, very much so......does this make him imperfect ?
There is an underlying understnding to this that suppoorts the notion of imperfection as being perfection.
One can use the issue of symmetry as an example.
The universe is not perfectly symmetrical. In fact it has a form of asymetrical symmetry. Using the example of as seemingly lopsided tree or a cloud in the sky or the stars seen at night. All have a symmetry which we can feel but not a symmetry we can determine geometrically.
so pefection lies in asymmetrical symmetry. The balance of or in undefined form. the eccentricity of Yin and Yang. The need for perpetual imbalance to be perpetually balanced.
The notion of God as perfectly dysfunctional by virtue of his perfection is an unreasonable assessment in my view.
I have often wanted to ground the notions of what God is.
Does he pick his nose? was one thread I started a while ago.
Does he have a reason to be called a he? [ does he have testicles and if so why does he have testicles?]
I guess I feel that for God to be real he has to be real and not some flimsy of perfection we would like him to be hence my criticism of our definitions rendering God an impossibility.
So for God to exist he has to be asymmetrically symmetrical or should I say an entity that must change, thus he must evolve. If he can not change because of our defnition of perfection then he can not exist as an animated entity and only exist as a suspended entity devoid of activity [ including thought] and I am afraid this is IMO far from perfect.
If God is all there is and all there is is God then God must evolve just like all there is evolves.
Unfortunately I have many problems with this reasoning. I understand I think where it is coming from and why it is what it is, however the idea of Gods perfection rendering him imperfect whilst true on one level is untrue on the other.
It suggests to me that if God was perfect as you suggest then he is incapable of movement or the change that movement generates. Basically God is unable to act thus he is imperfect and totally paralysed.
The reasoning you are using if I am not mistaken if allowed to flow to it's ultimate conclusion will determine God to be perfectly imperfect.
Just as reality is imperfectly perfect.
Many years ago I spent much time looking at this issue of perfection and realised that perfection lies in the imperfect. This ties in with how suffering [ imperfection] is a necesssary fact of existance.
Now I ask you as a leading question, "Does God suffer?"
My answer would be yes, very much so......does this make him imperfect ?
There is an underlying understnding to this that suppoorts the notion of imperfection as being perfection.
One can use the issue of symmetry as an example.
The universe is not perfectly symmetrical. In fact it has a form of asymetrical symmetry. Using the example of as seemingly lopsided tree or a cloud in the sky or the stars seen at night. All have a symmetry which we can feel but not a symmetry we can determine geometrically.
so pefection lies in asymmetrical symmetry. The balance of or in undefined form. the eccentricity of Yin and Yang. The need for perpetual imbalance to be perpetually balanced.
The notion of God as perfectly dysfunctional by virtue of his perfection is an unreasonable assessment in my view.
I have often wanted to ground the notions of what God is.
Does he pick his nose? was one thread I started a while ago.
Does he have a reason to be called a he? [ does he have testicles and if so why does he have testicles?]
I guess I feel that for God to be real he has to be real and not some flimsy of perfection we would like him to be hence my criticism of our definitions rendering God an impossibility.
So for God to exist he has to be asymmetrically symmetrical or should I say an entity that must change, thus he must evolve. If he can not change because of our defnition of perfection then he can not exist as an animated entity and only exist as a suspended entity devoid of activity [ including thought] and I am afraid this is IMO far from perfect.
If God is all there is and all there is is God then God must evolve just like all there is evolves.