c7ityi_:
Then what other foundation do you have for your 'cause'?
Then what other foundation do you have for your 'cause'?
What God Could Be
- Thread starter Scott Myers
- Start date
how about god is everything and everything is god a balence of good and evil right and wrong up and down left and right fire and water perfect yet inperfect yin and yang god is aomong us because god is us heaven is here now as is hell you can be in heaven but be going through hell
EmptyForceOfChi,
So, is there nothing more? No Hope?
Why go on?
So, is there nothing more? No Hope?
Why go on?
Scott Myers:
Hey! Where ya been? You haven't posted in ages!
Hey! Where ya been? You haven't posted in ages!
I think it's only been a week, but I'm busy running for a local office in my home town, building a skatepark and working on some other community projects, etc!!!!!
Oh, and I'm trying to write a small piece of fiction, based on some of my own personal 'mystical' experiences. One of our conversations here brought that on and now I'm obseced with that. I've been reading, though!
Oh, and I'm trying to write a small piece of fiction, based on some of my own personal 'mystical' experiences. One of our conversations here brought that on and now I'm obseced with that. I've been reading, though!
myers i dont understand what you are getting at from what i wrote sorry man clarify please
Scott Myers:
Do allow me to read the story once you have you done?
Do allow me to read the story once you have you done?
EmptyForceOfChi said:
I was being very broad, painting wide strokes over your comments.
Basically, don't you think that a philosophy of 'nothing is quantifiably anything' leads ultimately to nihalism?? Hence.. my previous questions.
Onefinity:
*Perks an eyebrow* But such would be...illogical.
But in what manner can it be said that "perfection is, at its root, subjective in its perspective"? If we define absolute perfect - as I proposed - as "the ultimate expression of a thing", then one can logically find what perfection would entail for things that could have such ultimate expressions. See my argument for the various omni attributes being perfections of lesser attributes.
*Perks an eyebrow* But such would be...illogical.
But in what manner can it be said that "perfection is, at its root, subjective in its perspective"? If we define absolute perfect - as I proposed - as "the ultimate expression of a thing", then one can logically find what perfection would entail for things that could have such ultimate expressions. See my argument for the various omni attributes being perfections of lesser attributes.
no there is enlightenment and inner peace of mind wich if achieved most likely is great
i wouldent know to be honest.
i wouldent know to be honest.
Prince_James said:
Even if "we" accept the vague definition of "ultimate expression of a thing," the notion of ultimacy, at the very least, requires an agreement among the observers for a standard. This alone makes it a subjective objective. Furthermore, the notion of ultimacy is a thought, but not something that seems to have correspondence in actual experience, because of the fuzziness of boundaries and the "trailing and..." - the tendency for a new frontier or differentiation to open up just at the cusp of "finality." In other words, some new imperfection (or path to perfection) is often not discovered (or does not exist) until the earlier idea of what is ultimate is approached. Here again, the subject is intimate to the ideal.
Onefinity:
An "ultimate expression" would be logically the greatest possible expression of that thing and this ought to be rather objective. Let's take presence, for instance. To be present finitely, is to exist in space and time in a certain manner, but necessarily the larger and more profoundly one exists, the more one can be said to have presence. What then, is the largest, greatest presenceo one can have? To exist as the very fabric of existence itself and to spread infinitely across space. That is to say, to be omnipresent.
An "ultimate expression" would be logically the greatest possible expression of that thing and this ought to be rather objective. Let's take presence, for instance. To be present finitely, is to exist in space and time in a certain manner, but necessarily the larger and more profoundly one exists, the more one can be said to have presence. What then, is the largest, greatest presenceo one can have? To exist as the very fabric of existence itself and to spread infinitely across space. That is to say, to be omnipresent.
BipolarDan
Registered Member
Well if you look at it in a pantheistic way, God is the universe.
God is all of the energy, the people, the matter, and the possibilities in the universe.
We are a part of God.
But maybe that's spiritualistic hogwash.
God is all of the energy, the people, the matter, and the possibilities in the universe.
We are a part of God.
But maybe that's spiritualistic hogwash.
Spirituality influences philosophy (or visa versa), unless of course you are Prince James.
Scott Myers:
I love you.
BipolarDan:
Not necessarily hogwash, as I actually assert this is philosophically valid, but it doesn't lead to the "mysticism" that many Pantheists fall into.
I love you.
BipolarDan:
Not necessarily hogwash, as I actually assert this is philosophically valid, but it doesn't lead to the "mysticism" that many Pantheists fall into.
Prince_James said:
Keeping in mind the thread topic I agree. Depending on the definition of "spititual".
God does not necessarilly have to be a spiritual entity but a very real and logically founded entity.
Spirituality can be a word to describe human values such as love and beauty etc, and does not necessarilly extend to the supernatural or parranormal which is usually associated with the words spirit or spirituality.
Pantheistic view of Reality becomes a more shamanistic view once "classic" spirituality is involved.
One can hold a pantheistic view that does not conjure the need for spirits as such.
So God could be defined in purely non-spiritual terms. IMO
Quantum Quack:
Agreed.
Again, completely agreed. Marcus Aurelius and Spinoza were Pantheists of this variety.
Agreed.
Again, completely agreed. Marcus Aurelius and Spinoza were Pantheists of this variety.
Actually I have argued this case many times in the past, it is possible to have a belief in God with out any religious overtones, again it depends on our requirements by way of definition.Prince_James said:
I personally am of this persuasion and find it reasonable, rational and consistant to do so. I see no problems that one encounters with orthadox religions. The belief allows for the greatest expression of what can be deemed as God including the reality of religious beliefs as being a necesssary part of mans evolution.
I also believe that in time patheistic beliefs will eventually and inevitably replace current religious faiths as mankinds primary philosophical need fulfilled.
Quantum Quack:
Completely. The classical philosophers (whilst nominally polytheists) were usually of this variety.
Sensible.
I agree.
Completely. The classical philosophers (whilst nominally polytheists) were usually of this variety.
Sensible.
I agree.