What God Could Be

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

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.

I don't think I ever claimed that God's perfection renders him imperfect at all? I find this an absurdity. There is nothing, itself, wrong with being unable to change, specifically if any change would destroy perfection, and hence it would be a degeneration.

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.

His ability to change would be restricted to the parts of his whole. That is, his movement would be the movement of atoms, people, celestial objects, et cetera, but he himself, as at otality, could not move at all, as to move would be to be non-infinite, to change to be non-eternal and perfect, et cetera.

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.

Might you demonstrate what is, in essence, so imperfect about this perfection?

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.

Voltaire would argue otherwise, as would the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius, though the latter two in different ways than the French infidel. Voltaire could imagine a world, contrary to the claims of ludicrous theodical propositions, that the world could be monumentally better than it is, whilst both the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius speak of extinguishing desire so that suffering does not result, as all suffering stems ultimately from attachment.

Now I ask you as a leading question, "Does God suffer?"

It is impossible for God to suffer, as to suffer is to lose something and to be altered, and to lose and to be altered is 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.

Could not one imagine a perfectly spherical object, for instance? I believe neutron star exteriors, in fact, correspond to a perfect sphere within an atom's width.

Does he have a reason to be called a he? [ does he have testicles and if so why does he have testicles?]

No, it just helps us to use "he" instead of "it". "She" would be perfectly acceptable, also. I simply use "he" based on my Western cultural tradition, which has always anthromorphized God as a male. Though of course, you weren't actually asking me this question, but I thought I'd answer nonetheless.

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.

Tell me, do you think logic is real?

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.

I would argue that GOd is really not a being at all, but existence itself, due to many contradictions in thinking of a being with his attributes.

If God is all there is and all there is is God then God must evolve just like all there is evolves.

Riddle me this: All things change, yes? But what does not change? Energy. Energy shifts form, but remains energy. Its identity as energy, its existence as energy, is eternal. Perhaps we can relate God to this. God contains change within him on finitescales, but is himself not changed, due to necessary perfection and eternity.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Can you elaborate on the concept of layers of existence?

God is in another dimension, different from ours. A dimension where time does not exist, where there's only a "now". Time is very relative to space. You cannot be in two places at the same time. And a moment can only be perceived in a single portion of the total space of the universe. Well, God doesn't deal with that. He only lives in a NOW which is EVERYWHERE. So we are in a "layer of existence" and He is in another one where every point which exists is everywhere.

Who talked about this before....? Leibniz.....
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm

Take a look at his "monads" concept....
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would argue that God is really not a being at all, but existence itself, due to many contradictions in thinking of a being with his attributes.

ah yes a panthesistic perspective that I myself have argued for many a time. [ And still do ] however if he is existance then he must be changing and also must be suffering entopy thus even as we speak God is dying.

If he is dying then he is changing. and perfection as you define it, is a nul concept.

According to science [entropy] even God by your definition is or would be seeking sustainable success.
Mind you I happen to agree in tha main with panthenism. I find it a much more holistic approach to the issue of God and existence.

Voltaire would argue otherwise, as would the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius, though the latter two in different ways than the French infidel. Voltaire could imagine a world, contrary to the claims of ludicrous theodical propositions, that the world could be monumentally better than it is, whilst both the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius speak of extinguishing desire so that suffering does not result, as all suffering stems ultimately from attachment.

IMO Buddha and Marcus came close but failed. They were simply wrong.
As I have contended in your other thread Samsara can not be defeated but only mastered. It is only after it is mastered that the choice of permanent oblivion is possible.
But I also accept that I am taking a contraversial position that will gain no immediate satisfaction.

 

[Prince_James]

Truthseeker:

God is in another dimension, different from ours. A dimension where time does not exist, where there's only a "now". Time is very relative to space. You cannot be in two places at the same time. And a moment can only be perceived in a single portion of the total space of the universe. Well, God doesn't deal with that. He only lives in a NOW which is EVERYWHERE. So we are in a "layer of existence" and He is in another one where every point which exists is everywhere.

But if God is the universe, and there exists in the universe time, God must therefore exist within time, nay? Upon what foundation does the assertion that he is dimensionless rest?

ah yes a panthesistic perspective that I myself have argued for many a time. [ And still do ] however if he is existance then he must be changing and also must be suffering entopy thus even as we speak God is dying.

Entropy does not destroy energy, nor in an infinite reality (which reality must be, even if the universe might be finite or might not be) can entropy ever hope to overcome infinity, by virtue that infinity is ever infinitely away from anything finite.

IMO Buddha and Marcus came close but failed. They were simply wrong.
As I have contended in your other thread Samsara can not be defeated but only mastered. It is only after it is mastered that the choice of permanent oblivion is possible.

Come to think of it, I really need to check on the Eastern Philosophy threads I started. I've been somewhat ignoring them, hoping they'd grow for a while so I'd have a bunch of stuff to reply to. Eastern Philosophy tends to be our slowest forum here on SciForums.

Now, as regards the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius: If samsara fundementally works via suffering, to rob it of its ability to suffer is somewhat of a destruction, is it not?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Prince_James,

I might reply to that later, but I leave you with a thought.

Do you consider the "NOW moment" and infinite and infinitesimaly small point in time?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Now, as regards the Buddha and Marcus Aurelius: If samsara fundementally works via suffering, to rob it of its ability to suffer is somewhat of a destruction, is it not?

One thing worth keeping in mind when talking about samsara is that samsara is a universal concept. It involves the entirety of existence not just an individual. To defeat samsara you have to defeat the entire existence.
The mere desire to end desire, the mere whisper of thought immediately reinforces Samsara. Thus we have a paradox.
The taoist trap comes to mind. [ wesmorris ]

The only way to destroy Samsara is when you are unconscious or dead and of course when you are unconscious or dead you can't do anything except wake up or be reborn.....thus Samsara is not able to be destroyed but only mastered. Mastery is not just individual mastery either but universally mastered.

Now to the issue of the universes demise. I understand entropy to be the balancing of energy. The universe will become universally the same temperature...thoughout generally speaking.
Now from what I understand about the need for imbalance to maintain movement and change this evening out of energy leads to perfect balance.

Once perfect balance is achieved al movement stops. Once all movement stops there is no change. once change stops the universe reduces to a zero point dimension. a zero point dimension is absolute nothingness.
To remove suffering is to remove this desire to relieve suffering, remove the desire to relieve suffering and movement stops, etc etc...and abolsute zero dimensionality is achieved.

The attempt to remove the need to relieve suffering in it's self is a desire to relieve suffering, which as far as the universe is concerned is a good thing as no Buddhist monk is going to destroy the universe no matter how hard he tries. and rebirth due to his desire to null desire is guaranteed.

The only way to avoid the paradox of desire is to master sufference. If one masters sufference absolutely one has achieved corporal immortality. The body does not suffer aging and thus does not die.


To sum up:
If Buddha had been successful in his attempts to defeat re-birth he would not have died. [ or needed to die ] as death then becomes his choice and not a samsara necessity. If absolute death becomes a true choice then he has the universes fate in his hands.

 

[Prince_James]

Truthseeker:

Do you consider the "NOW moment" and infinite and infinitesimaly small point in time?

Yes.

Quantum Quack:

One thing worth keeping in mind when talking about samsara is that samsara is a universal concept. It involves the entirety of existence not just an individual. To defeat samsara you have to defeat the entire existence.
The mere desire to end desire, the mere whisper of thought immediately reinforces Samsara. Thus we have a paradox.
The taoist trap comes to mind. [ wesmorris ]

Touche. One cannot defeat it for all beings, so one cannot defeat it fully, but to defeat it individually is achieved by extinguishing desire. For oneself, one can defeat it.

The desire to end desire is a desire in itself, but eventually when one attains to a non-attachment to even the desire to end desire itself, and to simply undesire, that desire fades itself. It starts, paradoxically, with desire, but ends with non-desire. One might think of it this way: Non-desire is the only thing one can desire which one can get completely. The one water to quench all thirsts.

Now to the issue of the universes demise. I understand entropy to be the balancing of energy. The universe will become universally the same temperature...thoughout generally speaking.
Now from what I understand about the need for imbalance to maintain movement and change this evening out of energy leads to perfect balance.

But if such perfect balance eventually fails, via the Laws of Thermodynamics, it cannot be said to be a perfect balance at all.

Once perfect balance is achieved al movement stops. Once all movement stops there is no change. once change stops the universe reduces to a zero point dimension. a zero point dimension is absolute nothingness.
To remove suffering is to remove this desire to relieve suffering, remove the desire to relieve suffering and movement stops, etc etc...and abolsute zero dimensionality is achieved.

I would argue that by virtue of having nothingenss, you automaticaly have somethingness, so that an end to existence cannot ever occur, precisely because to be non-existent is to automatically create existence and vice-versa.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Prince_James:

Touche. One cannot defeat it for all beings, so one cannot defeat it fully, but to defeat it individually is achieved by extinguishing desire. For oneself, one can defeat it.

At this level there is no such thing as individual you are either a reflection of the universe or you are not. if you exist then you must do so as a reflection of all that surrounds you, thus it is your reflected awareness of other persons and animated life forms desire that is also a part of the extinguishing of desire.

The desire to end desire is a desire in itself, but eventually when one attains to a non-attachment to even the desire to end desire itself, and to simply undesire, that desire fades itself. It starts, paradoxically, with desire, but ends with non-desire. One might think of it this way: Non-desire is the only thing one can desire which one can get completely. The one water to quench all thirsts.

Is breathing not a desire to relieve suffering?
Stop breathing for a while and see what I mean......so to extinguish desire means to stop breathing...hmmmm....sounds ok....but does nothing about Samsara.

But if such perfect balance eventually fails, via the Laws of Thermodynamics, it cannot be said to be a perfect balance at all.

When two opposing charges anhilate each other what do you have left?
I would contend perfect balance thus nothingness. It is only the difference between charges [ energy ] that promotes movement and change.
Analogy:
The change potential of 12 volt car battery becomes nothing once it has reached balance. The energy inbalance has created change. when it is balanced no further change is possible.

I would argue that by virtue of having nothingness, you automaticaly have somethingness, so that an end to existence cannot ever occur, precisely because to be non-existent is to automatically create existence and vice-versa.

But this is the nature of samsara - dualism "nothing-something" in absolute, nothingness has no somethingness. It is beyond the conception of infinite somethingness. [ you may recall an earlier discussion ]

The thing to realise is that we all achieve nothingness when we beome unconscious. [sleep] Does this defeat Samsara?
If not How do you suggest just being unconscious of desire is going to?

 

[c7ityi_]

First off, I've been meaning to say this: I love the Rikku icon.

Ehm.. thanks. You said that about the Yuffie icon too, I think.... when people say something good about me, I have no idea what I would say.

How so?

... if you speak at the right moment, at the right place, it is a "divine" action. But if you speak at the wrong moment, at the wrong place, speaking becomes a "satanic" action. Right and wrong are decided by "spacetime".

Like... if a word can save a life, but you keep silent, silence becomes satanic. But if you keep silent when words can hurt, or are unnecessary, silence becomes divine. There are no evil powers, only evil use of them.

It is only possible to speak if silence exists. The speaking must be separated from the unmanifested speaking which is silence (nothingness).

Everything you see, is visible only because it has been separated from its complementary half. This is the way with the universe also. Earth has attraction because the other negative, unmanifested side of it tries to unite with it.

All negative and positive things are as illusional as up and down. The mind creates up and down.

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.

If you want to find what the cause is, you have to go deeper. You said that YOU were the cause of that ball flying. Are YOU visible? Is your present will visible?

The cause is not something that happens in the past, it is continuous. If the effect is present, the cause is present.

An origin is not a cause (even the triggering factor is not the cause). Both origins and triggering factors take place in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.

Everything past is an effect, and an effect is the creation of the cause. When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed.

The cause is more like a signal (illusion of the visible world) which is sent into a television (body)

Moreover, whilst particles are surely "created" by something, could not - and is it not more likely - that it is from naturalistic causes?

Naturalistic? What "natural cause" is there before there are any kind of particles? By thinking about "magnetism", we can solve the most mysteries of the universe.

And upon what foundation do you assert that life stems from an "invisible will to evolve"?

Why does a seed grow when you plant it on the ground? Why do magnets (particles) attract and repel? Why are you trying to reach something?

How and why would an explosion (Big bang) in nothingness create birds singing in the trees, and creatures able to think and reason?

How could the universe be logical if it wasn't in our mind (creator of logic)?

Without a deep "will" (to unite and become more "whole") within matter, it is impossible to explain anything.

How can it "create" the senses without knowing of something to sense?

If the "mind", "God", the "self", the "will", had senses, it would be unable to create such a perfect world. Perfection is only possible by something entirely unconscious. If humans were omnipotent, they would destroy the world instantly because they have senses (consciousness, limitations)

The power which created the world thinks nothing. It feels nothing. It only is. Consider lower species like animals and plants. They are much more perfect than we are, because they are not as aware of their senses as we are. They are not aware of a "mind". Atoms are even more perfect. But the most perfect is the smallest one, the infinitely small, which gives particles their source of energy.

If you think about what you're doing, you make more mistakes. If you feel, you do less mistakes. If you are, you do no mistakes. When you're out for a walk, you don't think about it. If you do, you might even stumble. But you no longer need to think about walking because you have learned it, you don't have to feel either, you ARE walking. To learn and understand something completely means that we become it.

If we are good people, we don't talk about it. If we are real liars, we don't need to talk about it, since we are it. Thinking is a process between knowledge and not-knowledge. It is only necessary if we haven't reached the goal yet. God knows everything. What reason would he have to think if he knows everything? What could he possibly "think" about?

Nothing.

And, furthermore, why do you believe the way you do?

I don't "believe" or disbelieve what I say, I just say it. It's no more true than anything else, it's just a different perspective. To know something, I have to know everything, and if I know everything, I don't need to talk about it.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

At this level there is no such thing as individual you are either a reflection of the universe or you are not. if you exist then you must do so as a reflection of all that surrounds you, thus it is your reflected awareness of other persons and animated life forms desire that is also a part of the extinguishing of desire.

I would disagree. Can not one perceive another's motives without sharing them? To understand what they think, but not feel the same? Similarly, though we might only know we exist via reflection through the senses, we do not share in their existence beyond our sensory connection, or on a much more subtle level.

Is breathing not a desire to relieve suffering?
Stop breathing for a while and see what I mean......so to extinguish desire means to stop breathing...hmmmm....sounds ok....but does nothing about Samsara.

To be attached to breathing would be a desire to relieve suffering, but if one simply breathes, with no desire at all - which we do all the time, when we do not consciously think of breathing - then one is not, in fact, relieving any suffering.

When two opposing charges anhilate each other what do you have left?
I would contend perfect balance thus nothingness. It is only the difference between charges [ energy ] that promotes movement and change.
Analogy:
The change potential of 12 volt car battery becomes nothing once it has reached balance. The energy inbalance has created change. when it is balanced no further change is possible.

Whilst I do not like to be excessively nitpicky, you are actually a bit incorrect: When two opposing charges annihilate, they return to energy equivalent to the equation E = MC2. And if you meant balance in that the charges inside it would annihilate (which they couldn't), then no, you'd have actually all the energy there. If you meant it was equal with all else, then ane qual amount of energy would exist in the battery as it does in all other things, not nothingness, but most assuredly infinitely small.

But this is the nature of samsara - dualism "nothing-something" in absolute, nothingness has no somethingness. It is beyond the conception of infinite somethingness. [ you may recall an earlier discussion ]

I both agree and disagree. In the sense that somethingness and nothingness are polar opposites, yes, I whole heartedly agree, but I would assert that by virtue of their polar opposites, both create the other.

Riddle me this: Does not one automatically have long if one thinks of short? That in order for there to be "short", there must also be "long"?

The thing to realise is that we all achieve nothingness when we beome unconscious. [sleep] Does this defeat Samsara?
If not How do you suggest just being unconscious of desire is going to?

Naturally, no, sleep does not defeat samsara. Sleep is a state of temporary unconsciousness, where desire no longer exists on conscious thought, but is not extinguished. The state of non-desire spoken off in Buddhism and similar traditions, is one of a total abandonment of desire. Desire might be equated to a weed: Conscious desire is the above ground part, which is cut away through sleep, but the root, being not dealt with when one can, grows anew upon waking. /If, howver, one destroys the root, one never awakens to desire again.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I will attempt to answer in more detail later but can I leave you with this question to ponder on:
What prompts the body to breathe whilst asleep?
Could this not be linked directly to the desire for survival.
Nulling desire is a considerably more difficult exercise than we think is my estimation. not only conscious desirre but sub and unconscious desire as well needs to be nulified.
Is this possible to achieve and still alive?
the life/death paradox comes to the fore if one considers that you have to be dead to learn how to die.

 

[Quantum Quack]

also you may be able mitigate your current desire but you would have to nullify all past deisre as well. So you would have to have no memory of what you were doing or attempting to do. so the paradox again looms large. Is it possible to give yourself total amneasia by force of desire [will]?
keeping in mind we are talking about defeating samsara and not just a path towards enlightenment, as these IMO are very different ambitions.

 

[Prince_James]

Quantum Quack:

I will attempt to answer in more detail later but can I leave you with this question to ponder on:
What prompts the body to breathe whilst asleep?
Could this not be linked directly to the desire for survival.
Nulling desire is a considerably more difficult exercise than we think is my estimation. not only conscious desirre but sub and unconscious desire as well needs to be nulified.
Is this possible to achieve and still alive?
the life/death paradox comes to the fore if one considers that you have to be dead to learn how to die.

One might think of breathing when asleep like one thinks of any deterministic process. It is not the conscious mind that provokes breathing in sleep, but simply the non-conscious deterministic processes of the body that does.

Moreover, a state of non-desire is that of a state of non-attachment. Non-attachment requirse one to neither care to breath or not, to simply allow what may come to pass and not cling to it at all. Thus one can speak of how the body simply does what it is programmed t do, and that one clings not to the process at all.

also you may be able mitigate your current desire but you would have to nullify all past deisre as well. So you would have to have no memory of what you were doing or attempting to do. so the paradox again looms large. Is it possible to give yourself total amneasia by force of desire [will]?

Past desires mitigate themselves through having been fullfilled and no longer presently existing. They are also dealt with by non-attachment of caring whether they were fullfilled ot nor fullfilled, existent or non-existent. A state of pure non-attachment is basically ultimate apathetic serenity.

keeping in mind we are talking about defeating samsara and not just a path towards enlightenment, as these IMO are very different ambitions.

Defeating samsara for everyone else is impossible. One cannot do anything for another person but point towards what they can do to themselves. Defeating samsara for oneself, however, is the same as enlightenment.

 

[Scott Myers]

By c7ityi_:

“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.”

This statement seems to be in conflict with the base of your worldview. Let me share with you my assumptions; actually you said as much…

Would you not prefer to say that it is our minds, self-consciousness and it is the “I” that limits us from complete bliss… from being one with the One (unconsciousness); which is simply being; and the ultimate reflection?

Isn’t the whole; to use one of your quotes, the only God? “If the "mind", "God", the "self", the "will", had senses, it would be unable to create such a perfect world. Perfection is only possible by something entirely unconscious. If humans were omnipotent, they would destroy the world instantly because they have senses (consciousness, limitations)”


So is it the inanimate objects like rocks and elements that have limitations due to their lack of consciousness, or is it consciousness that limits us alone in contrast to the ultimate existence of just being?; or neither (per se ‘an illusion of right and wrong’)… in which case there should be no discussion of any of this; since it is all so futile?

So, retract the assertion that rocks plants and animals are somehow “limited” due to their unconsciousness. They are, according to your apparent worldview, more adept and more evolved than our silly human conversations of the “I”. Does the "I" exist in any dimension, or in any reality; or should it?

Please remedy, or enter bliss for our sakes. We like to wonder and think on things… highly un-evolved we realize!

Another gem... "I don't "believe" or disbelieve what I say, I just say it. It's no more true than anything else, it's just a different perspective. To know something, I have to know everything, and if I know everything, I don't need to talk about it."

Try this... stop talking; then we should all be in in awe of your "know everything" state of being. Then we can review all of your posts to see why we should all keep quiet, and turn our brains off.




As for the rest of you... I think the perfection conversation does belong in the new thread; and you are moving far too fast for some of us mortals.. Well; me for sure! I can barely read it all fast enough to hear it?

But; then again... don't slow down on my account; it's very good conversation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:



One might think of breathing when asleep like one thinks of any deterministic process. It is not the conscious mind that provokes breathing in sleep, but simply the non-conscious deterministic processes of the body that does.

Moreover, a state of non-desire is that of a state of non-attachment. Non-attachment requirse one to neither care to breath or not, to simply allow what may come to pass and not cling to it at all. Thus one can speak of how the body simply does what it is programmed t do, and that one clings not to the process at all.



Past desires mitigate themselves through having been fullfilled and no longer presently existing. They are also dealt with by non-attachment of caring whether they were fullfilled ot nor fullfilled, existent or non-existent. A state of pure non-attachment is basically ultimate apathetic serenity.



Defeating samsara for everyone else is impossible. One cannot do anything for another person but point towards what they can do to themselves. Defeating samsara for oneself, however, is the same as enlightenment.

are you talking from experience or are you quoting other sources?
If you feel the Buddhist approach is successful on what basis is this founded?

Is there any proof that rebirth has been defeated by anyone?

The thing that is worth noting is that samsara is what we might call a devine construct. It is a fundemental that existence or God if you like has created. Do you honestly believe that it can be avoided with out coming into direct conflict with that existence or God?

And also do you believe that it is only the intellect or should I say conscious will that is involved in the cycle of Samsara? If so on what basis is this belief founded?
Also is not consciousness itself a product of sufference. The need to wake and have food, to move those aching limbs the desire to avoid bedsores etc.

Even waking to consciousness is a product of desire is it not?

So how can desire be nullified if one is conscious? if consciousness itself is driven by desire.

How is the paradoxed desire for consciousness/unconsciousness avoided?
The desire for sleep in itself is a conscious desire yes?

 

[Scott Myers]

*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​

*this advertisment is entirely ficticious. All characters portrayed or alluded to are not representative of any known actually living or dead persons.

This was the most entertaining piece in this entire thread... And I have been very happy so far to see where this lead. I am even happier that no one challenged the fact that I made no attempt to answer the question posed.

God can be; and must be… all knowing “omniscient” as PJ would say; else he is of no purpose to my ‘I’. If I cannot look in the mirror; find my-‘self’ wanting and have nowhere to turn ‘for human frailty’s sake’ than He does not qualify for the job. He must know me better than I know my ‘I’; or there is no God.

I concede that the question posed was not; ‘whether or not’ He exists, but what if; and what does that mean if? Have we created God in our discussion… certainly not.


Webster says,

“god; noun. Someone considered to be extremely important or valuable; an image, symbol, or statue of such a being.”
And:
“God; noun. The supreme being; ruler of life and the universe.”

Webster is Western perhaps, but I must concur. The lower case “‘g’od” can be anything we would like to make it… be it the entirety; one element or ideal, but the “‘G’od” I speak of does have characteristics and traits somewhat knowable and concludes that my ‘I’ is equal to your ‘I’ at the very essence of ‘being’.

If a god is not the supreme ruler of life and the universe, and cannot simultaneously know the ‘I’ better than I; than he cannot have “what is required” to fulfill the position of God.


PJ?
What of your theology?

If????????

Then what? and do we agree (as per my potifications)... if in fact; God?

 

[Quantum Quack]

This was the most entertaining piece in this entire thread... And I have been very happy so far to see where this lead. I am even happier that no one challenged the fact that I made no attempt to answer the question posed.

God can be; and must be… all knowing “omniscient” as PJ would say; else he is of no purpose to my ‘I’. If I cannot look in the mirror; find my-‘self’ wanting and have nowhere to turn ‘for human frailty’s sake’ than He does not qualify for the job. He must know me better than I know my ‘I’; or there is no God.

I concede that the question posed was not; ‘whether or not’ He exists, but what if; and what does that mean if? Have we created God in our discussion… certainly not.


Webster says,

“god; noun. Someone considered to be extremely important or valuable; an image, symbol, or statue of such a being.”
And:
“God; noun. The supreme being; ruler of life and the universe.”

Webster is Western perhaps, but I must concur. The lower case “‘g’od” can be anything we would like to make it… be it the entirety; one element or ideal, but the “‘G’od” I speak of does have characteristics and traits somewhat knowable and concludes that my ‘I’ is equal to your ‘I’ at the very essence of ‘being’.

If a god is not the supreme ruler of life and the universe, and cannot simultaneously know the ‘I’ better than I; than he cannot have “what is required” to fulfill the position of God.

well maybe we can look at it this way:
I ask you the following questions:
1] How much knowledge do you know you hold?
possible answer: 50 years of learning and understanding.
2] Can you tell me all your knowledge in an instant of time?
possible answer: No it would take much time to tell you all I know.
3] If you had infinite knowledge of everything how long would it take to convey that knowledge to someone else?
possible answer: It would take eternity or an infinite amount of time.
4] If I said to you you awareness and knowledge was perfect and infinite but you have only realised 50 years worth would you consider yourself as omniscient?
Possible answer: Yes, but I have not had time to realise it.
5] If I said your awareness was omni and used the same logic would you agree that you are omni aware?
Possible answer : Yes
6] so would you agree that it is only your mortality that disallows the realisation of your omniness?
possible answer????

Just thought I'd throw a little potential into the scenario...maybe broaden the topic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

the point being that can we consider ourselves to be Gods by definition of omniscience and omniwareness or omni presence even though we have not realised it?
And even so does this omniness qualify us as Gods?

 

[Scott Myers]

Quantum Quack:

Excellent broadening; and I am in no state to answer bullet by bullet, but when I had been ‘illumined’ by God, He gave me years of knowledge in a brief moment of time. It was an overwhelming experience and I, for a moment, knew that there was only one who could know so much… about my world, my self, my experiences etc. Also… the knowledge that had been transcended in a moment of time (maybe in a zero quantifiable now) was of invaluable consequence; to myself, my still future family, many whom I had known along the way, and many whom I would later meet in life experiences. (oh, 33 year so far)

Also… the knowledge gained in a brief moment of connection and (ultimate consciousness); took some years to decipher and truly fully realize; which may not yet be wholly so!

So your questions are valid based on my own personal experience and have some validity as it concerns the ‘omni’ attributes of God.

Onwards!

"And even so does this omniness qualify us as Gods? "

I would say as the simplton, no! Because... Even though I have experienced some transendend knowledge from what I believe (know) to be the one God... it is mostly focused on one area ;aspect of life in general. It was certainly not the totality that I have simply not yet realized. There are limitations to individual knowledge; else we would fail to be 'individual'; no?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack:

Excellent broadening; and I am in no state to answer bullet by bullet, but when I had been ‘illumined’ by God, He gave me years of knowledge in a brief moment of time. It was an overwhelming experience and I, for a moment, knew that there was only one who could know so much… about my world, my self, my experiences etc. Also… the knowledge that had been transcended in a moment of time (maybe in a zero quantifiable now) was of invaluable consequence; to myself, my still future family, many whom I had known along the way, and many whom I would later meet in life experiences. (oh, 33 year so far)

Also… the knowledge gained in a brief moment of connection and (ultimate consciousness); took some years to decipher and truly fully realize; which may not yet be wholly so!

So your questions are valid based on my own personal experience and have some validity as it concerns the ‘omni’ attributes of God.

Onwards!

"And even so does this omniness qualify us as Gods? "

I would say as the simplton, no! Because... Even though I have experienced some transendend knowledge from what I believe (know) to be the one God... it is mostly focused on one area ;aspect of life in general. It was certainly not the totality that I have simply not yet realized. There are limitations to individual knowledge; else we would fail to be 'individual'; no?

I must admit I have had simlar experiences however I did not attribute this knowledge to God I attributed it to my own unconscious potential. Which of course is now a consious potential.
I am not convinced that a loss of individuality is to be feared by gaining omniscience. Certainly individuality would need ot be redefined.