Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
92 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, Nick, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,400 Year: 1,046/14,102 Month: 38/411 Week: 59/168 Day: 7/12 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature of a GOD?
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 32 (126726)
07-22-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
07-03-2004 4:20 AM


This is just my ponderings so take them for what they are worth... possibly very little.

Since God spoke everything into existance, this implies that there are corresponding thoughts behind his speech. Thus it might be reasoned that all of creation (including us) are nothing more than God's imagination.

Just a thought
PM1K

This message has been edited by portmaster1000, 07-22-2004 04:22 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 07-03-2004 4:20 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 07-23-2004 12:06 AM portmaster1000 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by lfen, posted 07-27-2004 4:32 AM portmaster1000 has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 17 of 32 (126816)
07-23-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by portmaster1000
07-22-2004 5:08 PM


Decartes' matrix
And Descarte theorized that all of creation could simply be a demon controlling your mind giving you the illusion of an existance. Giving you the illusion that you are actually reading this right now. Descarte's demon theory I think inspired the Matrix to some degree.*edit to add: Nothing one can do to prove this is not the case. Congito ergo sum requires one to first acknowlege a thinker behind the thought. Can there be a thought without a thinker is a better question.

This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-22-2004 11:10 PM

This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-22-2004 11:12 PM


"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by portmaster1000, posted 07-22-2004 5:08 PM portmaster1000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by lfen, posted 07-27-2004 5:01 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 18 of 32 (127994)
07-27-2004 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by portmaster1000
07-22-2004 5:08 PM


I sometimes get a feeling of ennui from a sense of being hemmed in by the restrictions of western religious ideas theist and atheist that seem almost all pervasive in these forums.

Aside from myself I scarcely ever hear mention of the Tao here, or of the Buddha nature, the Godhead, or non dual conceptions of the universe.

I find the religions of the near east to be so primitive, simplistic, and naively literal compared to the expansive views from the east. The Old Master, Lao Tzu (which is what Lao Tzu means) was so semantically modern in his understanding when he said the truth is nameless but in order to speak of it he had to call it something so he called it the Way, but the way that can be named is not the true way. He compared this not to a father giving commands but to a mother giving birth. The Way (The Tao) is the mother of the universe, of the ten thousand things.

Speech and thought emerge from silence. It is in the silence, the void that birth occurs. One myth from India has the universe to be but the dream of a single breath of the supreme god. The god exhales the universe and then inhaling brings it to an end only to begin it again in the next exhalation.

Perhaps it was language that birthed the human ego and it projected itself back onto the cosmos in the image of language using deities?
Jiddhu Krishnamurti speaks of the self as being thought, being something known, impermanent, ephemeral. For him truth lay beyond thought.

Thought is a tool. The ego seeks its security in building systems with this tool that it believes will protect and continue it. But the ego has only a conditional existence and eventually it subsides and disappears. Into what does it subside? What are we to make of this? Ramana Maharshi believed the highest speech was silence and was his preferred method of teaching. Even the Judeo Christian tradition has intimations of this in the "be still and know that I am god."

Thought gives rise to the ego and both have their functions, but that which was prior to the ego is prior to thought.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by portmaster1000, posted 07-22-2004 5:08 PM portmaster1000 has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 19 of 32 (127996)
07-27-2004 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by 1.61803
07-23-2004 12:06 AM


Re: Decartes' matrix
Ah 1.etc

Can there be a thought without a thinker is a better question.

I would suggest this as an even better question, "Can there be a thinker with out a thought?"

The non dual answer is that the thinker is the thought. The thinker is the thought stream and there is no thinker apart from thought. There is just the thought that there is a thinker.

peace,
lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 07-23-2004 12:06 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by General Nazort, posted 08-04-2004 3:47 PM lfen has not yet responded

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 32 (128006)
07-27-2004 5:40 AM


brane teaser
God, consciousness and the soul could theoretically exist in 3 of the 7 dimensions required for string theory that exist both outside of and hidden inside the fabric of spacetime as defined by our 3 visible dimensions which come together to create time, the 4th dimension...

...making everything a vibration/fluctuation in a field of dreams

time to wake up now Ringo...


  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 32 (130365)
08-04-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
07-03-2004 4:20 AM


God
Sidelined, hopefully this will help.

Consider a two dimensional plane inhabited by two dimensional shapes. Now, consider a three dimensional shape that resides above this two dimensional plane. The 3d shape is not in the 2d plane. It is above it, it "transcends" the 2d plane. However, if it chooses, the 3d shape can lower part of itself into the 2d plane. Now, although the majority of the shape still transcends the 2d plane, part of the 3d shape exists in the plane and can cause things to happen.

I believe that God exists in higher dimensions that we as humans are not able to percieve or reach, just as the 2d objects were not able to percieve or reach the 3d plane.

This analogy is obviously not perfect (otherwise it would not be an analogy) but it helps to illustrate the way in which God exists outside our universe and yet can still affect the universe if he chooses.


If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 07-03-2004 4:20 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by portmaster1000, posted 08-04-2004 4:09 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 32 (130367)
08-04-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by lfen
07-27-2004 5:01 AM


Re: Decartes' matrix
"Can there be a thinker with out a thought?"

I believe there can be. For example, if you are unconsious, you are not thinking, but you are still a thinker. That is, you still have the ability to think when you become consious again. I would argue that the thinker and the thought are NOT one and the same.


If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by lfen, posted 07-27-2004 5:01 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 32 (130386)
08-04-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by General Nazort
08-04-2004 3:44 PM


Re: God
I'll run further with the 2D/3D analogy.

A 2D being could not ever hide from the 3D perspective - Thus a 3D being can see everything the 2D being does.

A 3D being (or whatever part interacts with the 2D world) could appear to move thru walls to any 2D being. The 3D being simply uses the extra dimension to bypass them.

A 3D being could take a 2D being completely out of the 2D beings world. Any 2D being witnessing this would see the abducted 2D being as vanishing into "thin air". The 3D being can also use this trick and completely vanish from the 2D world.

Remind you of any Biblical stories?

thanx
PM1K


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by General Nazort, posted 08-04-2004 3:44 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
StuMan77
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 32 (136958)
08-26-2004 4:33 AM


Different Concept
So far, many (but not all) of the posts in this forum have addressed the idea of God and Creation as there being God, and then seperate from Him totally is the creation. I would recommend looking into the eastern religions, as they have many good concepts that may help you to come to a better realization of God. God is not seperate from His creation, God is in His creation. We are offshoots of God. It's an odd concept and difficult to put into words, but once you understand it, you understand it. While constricted in this mortal coil, we are seperated from God by our ego. It keeps us from being one with Him. The ego desires to do things that God would not. This is kind of groundwork for another theory I hold, that Jesus was actually an egoless human being, but that is another post for another time. Many churches (including my own) are very restrictive to this kind of thought. They are fearful, I guess, of outside concepts and forward thinking. I'm not saying this in a pantheistic way or a rebellious way, I just disagree with many things that most churches do during this era. They often become too incorperated or afraid of continual attempts at perfection and simply settle down and form God to their mold, rather than vice versa. But I digress. Comments would be appreciated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by CK, posted 08-26-2004 5:14 AM StuMan77 has responded
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 08-31-2004 10:54 AM StuMan77 has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 25 of 32 (136964)
08-26-2004 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by StuMan77
08-26-2004 4:33 AM


Re: Different Concept
it's an interesting idea but it will never get around my basic disbelief in God - be it the christian god or some eastern one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by StuMan77, posted 08-26-2004 4:33 AM StuMan77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by StuMan77, posted 08-26-2004 5:21 AM CK has responded

  
StuMan77
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 32 (136965)
08-26-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by CK
08-26-2004 5:14 AM


Re: Different Concept
The point is not for it to be a "Christian" god or an "eastern God" the point is simply that there is a divine existance. You may disagree, and I have no absolute proof of a God. But without one, existance becomes meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by CK, posted 08-26-2004 5:14 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by CK, posted 08-26-2004 5:27 AM StuMan77 has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2916 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 27 of 32 (136966)
08-26-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by StuMan77
08-26-2004 5:21 AM


Re: Different Concept
But without one, existance becomes meaningless.

For you maybe, I get along just fine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by StuMan77, posted 08-26-2004 5:21 AM StuMan77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by StuMan77, posted 08-31-2004 3:54 AM CK has not yet responded

  
StuMan77
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 32 (138353)
08-31-2004 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by CK
08-26-2004 5:27 AM


Re: Different Concept
What would you consider your purpose for existance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by CK, posted 08-26-2004 5:27 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 10:24 AM StuMan77 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 29 of 32 (138400)
08-31-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by StuMan77
08-31-2004 3:54 AM


Re: Different Concept
A great travel song that should be familar to all.

"We're here
because we're here
because we're here
because we're here.

We're here
because we're here
because we're here
because we're here."


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by StuMan77, posted 08-31-2004 3:54 AM StuMan77 has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 32 (138405)
08-31-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by StuMan77
08-26-2004 4:33 AM


Re: Different Concept
stuman77 writes:

God is not seperate from His creation, God is in His creation.

Is that not what omnipresent means?
stuman77 writes:

we are separated from God by our ego.


Freudian intergration of Christian dogma? I thought you just said "God is not separate from His creation.."
stuman77 writes:

The ego desires to do things God would not.


Maybe the ego is Satan. Or would that be the Id??
stuman77 writes:

Jesus was a egoless human being.

Pehaps he was until he was fully deified in the gospel of John.


"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by StuMan77, posted 08-26-2004 4:33 AM StuMan77 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021