Where there is love, there is no imposition - Einstein

Itisnowagain

Yes it leads to nothing at all.

And yet here we are talking about it.

In the beginning there was nothing

John 1:1 In the Beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the Word was God.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
You might note something here. God was present in the Beginning to create. This tells us that God is transcendent of time. In short he is not himself in time but rather outside of time. Hence eternal.

and God said.................. What is God if there was nothing and words arose?

Then one would have to assume the premise that God was not already present was false; and that there was someone to form those words... Like an eternal God.

There is still nothing - nothing cannot come or go - it is the ever present unappearing and appearing. All that appears comes and goes in That. I am That and there is nothing separate to That.

However we know there is something because we are having this discussion.

Nirvana is the snuffing out of the (false) self centre.

So how would one know if they reached Nirvana?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What is God if there was nothing and words arose? 

Nothingness cannot Create, you first have to Exist in order to Create.

So God is The Eternal Creative Force of Life (Spirit) which always existe. Life shines Peace/Healing/Love.

Spirits are made of The Eternal Force of Life, but some become forgetful (unaware/dark).

originally posted by: Itisnowagain



Unfortunately "I think therefore I am."
To suppose what you are seemingly saying is a self refuting proposition. I exist, but I do not, is not coherent.

Thoughts happen and thought declares that 'I' am the doer of thought.
To be or not to be? That is the question.

I am not following your train of thought at all, Prince Hamlet contemplating Suicide does not seem to mesh well with the premise that someone can be self aware.

You are but you are not what thought says you are.

"I am" is all my thoughts up to this point have claimed.

a reply to: Punisher75

"I am" is all my thoughts up to this point have claimed.

There is a deep sense of knowing that you are, is there not? You absolutely know that you exist but how do you know?
You know you exist because there appears to be something other than you.

If everything that you know was removed - that is all you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, sense - how would you know that you are.
And what would you be if everything that appears to be other than you just disappeared?

originally posted by: arpgme


Nothingness cannot Create, you first have to Exist in order to Create.

Nothing is ever created. No thing has ever been made.
There is just dancing light.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Punisher75

"I am" is all my thoughts up to this point have claimed.

There is a deep sense of knowing that you are, is there not? You absolutely know that you exist but how do you know?
You know you exist because there appears to be something other than you.

If everything that you know was removed - that is all you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, sense - how would you know that you are.
And what would you be if everything that appears to be other than you just disappeared?

I would know for the same reason René Descartes stated.
I think therefore I am.
The question I think you need to ask yourself, is this.
If we lived in a pantheistic reality then how would it be possible to say "I think therefore I am"?
In order for non eternal and transcendent being to have language in which to think in, one has to have something outside themselves, to identify; in order to create a word for a concept. This would include the concept of "I think therefore I am."
This was the fundamental pretense of Ingsoc in George Orwell's 1984.

You guys... are kinda funny. I just had to say it. It seems you've suffered some education or read thousands of books.
I've done it too. You need to get rid of thought processes of other people. You always end in the beginning, don't you? At least talk a while about love. Unless you think about love in C++

a reply to: Punisher75

To be is to be related.

We have never observed something that was totally isolated from everything else, it's impossible, it just doesn't exist. Even your own body is made of many different things that are related to each other, but even your own body that seems to function as a unit cannot exist if it is not related to something else. Therefore it is an illusion of the mind to think that "I" is something of its own, something that we could define isolated from everything else. We consider the limit of the 'body' as being the skin, but it is an arbitrary choice that we have made for practical reasons : we seem to move as a unit and feel pain while others around us may not feel the same pain, but those characteristics (mobility and pain) are arbitrary choices.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Punisher75

"I am" is all my thoughts up to this point have claimed.

There is a deep sense of knowing that you are, is there not? You absolutely know that you exist but how do you know?
You know you exist because there appears to be something other than you.

If everything that you know was removed - that is all you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, sense - how would you know that you are.
And what would you be if everything that appears to be other than you just disappeared?

A pig among God damn guinea pigs. You know your treading dangerous waters there right?