Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: pthena

Before I existed to know and after I exist to know, God is,
therefore whether I know or know not, there is God,
therefore God is not dependent upon my existence.

Have you not inquired into what you are and found out what you really are!

This is from Peter Browns website:

What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.

What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.
www.theopendoorway.org...

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Nothin

Was asking what you thought of when the yogis and maharishis, ancient sages and philosophers, folks with 'weird' experiences, and all of the varied deep experiences of living humans : and how that compared to similar experiences of folks whom are strong believers, having similar experiences, including deep prayer, being 'touched-by-God', and such.

The yogi experiences is something entirely different in my mind, I'm
by no means an expert. If their experiences involve other entities
God warns us to test the spirit. To see if it is of the Father. What I
think the yogis are actually doing is forcing their way in to parts
unknown. Say in the mind, a different plain, or realm, or dimension.
or you name it. This could be why they prepare themselves over
long periods and even then they take baby steps. Slowly graduating
because they are aware of the dangers. There isn't any of that in
prayer that I've ever heard .

So I don't see how that would compare because no one even comes
to the Father except thru Christ. The way I've experienced his light
in my mind was as I said. Being patient and never doubting him in
thought when I was younger and was confronted by questions. I didn't
expect an immediate answer. But I noticed after any given amount
of time some occurrence however trivial but suddenly I'd see the answer
and it made perfect sense. The more that happens the more you see
how God speaks to us. Sometimes thru the freakiest most impossible
synchronicity's. I could share some examples but it'd be a lot text. And I
truthfully don't have time for all that right now.

I hope that at least comes close if not don't give up.

No one's gonna hate on you for admitting that you don't know something, every now and then.
If they do : just turn the other cheek. No need to argue.
It's worse trying to communicate with the many know-it-all-know-nothings on this site, so almost refreshing to see you almost admit that you don't have a clue. That's fine, and good. Really !

Personally don't know nothin... LoL !!
See ! Not so hard.

Anywho: was hoping to indicate the inner-travelers, especially those not interacting with entities, real or imagined.
Have you ever thought about what the heck they are doing, and experiencing ?

Thanks for putting effort into your reply, and sharing how you approached your deeper inquiries, holding the intention of Jesus, and God.
Am finding faith and belief, to be beautiful in many ways.
It's just not my personal interest, most of the time, but still nice to ponder sometimes.
Also worth noting : that it may not be the only path, for our more profound inquiries.

Perhaps God, in Her infinite wisdom, has provided many paths to the mountaintop, and many vistas ?

Does the theatre of war include God?

Does a war theatre have love? Does it obey the natural law? What about moral law?

Is dishonesty against the law?

Truth is always going to be a herald to truth..

Maybe the Devil has taken over.. but we must understand his objectives..

He might be interested in the same things you are..

a reply to: Nothin

Excellent retort and you can believe I always try to answer thru the
best of my knowledge. And sometimes we can get caught up in that.
Or at least I do.

This is a real phenomena in our heads that I am aware of. And I'm
always saying " Who knows?" But I hope I made it clear that j was liking
the conversation as well.

Anywho: was hoping to indicate the inner-travelers, especially those not interacting with entities, real or imagined.
Have you ever thought about what the heck they are doing, and experiencing ?

Not to much no. I think it's true tho " No one man can serve two masters" That
is to say I don't believe yogis have much time to think about Gods kingdom.
I could be completely wrong about that last part.

Perhaps God, in Her infinite wisdom, has provided many paths to the mountaintop, and many vistas ?

I know of seven seas one might need to get there. Imagine the adventure.

a reply to: carsforkids
Here is an interesting page about what yogis have found to be God:
How Yoga Made Me Believe in God - Bad Yogi Blog
www.badyogi.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Cool I have time to check that out.

So for me to try and remove Gods sovereignty and make him
just some left over vibration from the voice of being who could
speak things into existence. But now ends up a captive of his own
creation?

That just doesn't cut it for me. I believe God is capable of relationships
with his Creation. And that this universe was meant for us to explore. But
with his guidance thru the adventures that we were meant live forever to
complete. Because God doesn't make things to die. Breaking the law is sin
and that is the only reason we have death in this world. So of course he set
about laws for us at "The beginning" of what was supposed to be. The only
reason were still here? He hasn't given up on us yet? I think that's a solid
base for seeking him. I want to walk with him and if possible maybe say
something to make him smile.

a reply to: Pachomius

Please think over your division of two kinds of existence, and rewrite them as to be more concise, clean, and comprehensible.

No. I can't.

I named the unknowable,
thus naming the unnamable,
and so I was cast out.

and now I am atheist.

My god doesn't fit in your framework.

a reply to: Nothin

Right on time.


I failed to account this song as holy writ.

But the string's already broken and he doesn't really care

According to the commonly accepted scale:
Theist, Deist, Agnostic, Atheist

I've always been atheist
according to what I know.

Never believed in eternity nor omnipotence;
attributes which the theists insist upon.

-----------------
Once long ago
I drove through a Rocky Mountain pass.
It was more than 11,000 ft.
Highest I've ever been.
Got out and looked around.

On Mount Whitney years later,
I could only hike to 9,000 ft.
My max.
but I could see
the places I would never be,
and it was good.

Photo credit: Geographer (talk · contribs) - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Zeimusu.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Have you not inquired into what you are and found out what you really are!

Yes and somewhat.

it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

It would be untrue. I am embodied.

This is not theoretical

Yes. It is.

Peter Brown does not know me.
I do not know Peter Brown.

Yet Peter Brown is,
and so am I.

( I mean I is.
That doesn't sound right.
I am ?
oooh, blasphemy!

wait. wait.
I am dependent upon god,
and so is Peter Brown.

but we are not dependent upon each other.

That's true.)

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Erin Motz I assume.

In yoga, god is everywhere. In yoga, god stopped being a thing and became all the things. Yoga helped me see the connections between all of us- the om. Traditionally, yogis believe that everything in the universe vibrates to the sound of om (pronounced ah-oo-mm). That’s god to me. The connection between everyone, everything, every one and every thing.

There’s not a lot of good news lately and it’s easy to feel bogged down in the hopelessness of it all. I’m trying to remember the god, the om, the connection in those moments. Despite the suffering, in spite of the suffering, we are all connected. I feel the pain of others, I hope others feel my empathy, compassion, and love. I pray for them- in my om, in my meditation, in my being.

Yes. The real God.

Peter Brown (no disrespect) is teaching a theory ( in my opinion ).

“NEVER TIPTOE AROUND WHO YOU ARE. STEPPING LIGHTLY NEVER LEAVES FOOTPRINTS.”

– ERIN MOTZ

Oh Great! Now I have a crush on Erin.

What if I email her ?

No.
That never works.
Nobody likes to receive incoherent gibberish in the mail.

a reply to: Pachomius
If we have to identify something that has always existed, it seems more reasonable to begin with something that has been shown to exist, than something we cannot confirm.
We can pick up a rock and say, “Hey, look! I found a part of the Universe!” We cannot go into a church and say, “Hey, look! I found God! and produce the proof” (Well, you would… but you know what I mean.)
If something must always exist, there is one less variable in saying the Universe has always existed (in some shape or form) than saying it was created from nothing.

I get the feeling you really do not want an intelligent conversation or reasoning.

I'm spoiled too

a reply to: Peeple

At least a thought like "I want to meet God" or "I want to save the world" will creep in or why would you do it?

So I've been thinking about this.

I almost posted this song a couple of days ago:


but then I re-read the lyrics. The whole song was great, except this one line:

Surely heaven waits for you

That just didn't strike me as quite right.

Then today I found what the song writer thought of that line:

This was written by Kansas guitarist Kerry Livgren. According to Livgren, the song was not written to express anything specifically religious, though it certainly expresses spiritual searching and other ideas.

Livgren became an evangelical Christian in 1980, and has said that his songwriting to that point was all about "searching." Regarding this song, he explained: "I felt a profound urge to 'Carry On' and continue the search. I saw myself as the 'Wayward Son,' alienated from the ultimate reality, and yet striving to know it or him. The positive note at the end ('surely heaven waits for you') seemed strange and premature, but I felt impelled to include it in the lyrics. It proved to be prophetic."
songfacts.com carry-on-wayward-son

And so that line is still problematic to me.
Doesn't seem right for me to re-define a word in a way that the song writer didn't intend.

Full Lyrics:

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Ah

Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
I was soaring ever higher, but I flew too high

Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
I can hear them say

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man
Well, it surely means that I don't know

On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about, I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune
But I hear the voices say

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more no!

Carry on
You will always remember
Carry on
Nothing equals the splendor
Now your life's no longer empty
Surely heaven waits for you

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry
Don't you cry no more

No more!

MONO




In brief, dear pthena, you admit that you cannot think and write more concisely, more cleanly, and more comprehensively.


Anyway, you admit that you exist, or you are not sure at all you exist?

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear pthena, what do you say, can we divide existence into two kinds:

1. Existence that is from itself, only example is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

2. Existence from another, that is everything created i.e. caused to come into existence by God, example is the nose on our face and the whole body of man, and in brief everything with a beginning.


NB Please everyone interacting with me for my replies to your posts, I will now just keep to exchange with pthena, and you just will know my reaction to your messages, by immediate access to the implications from my exchange with pthena, okay?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Pachomius

Dear pthena, what do you say, can we divide existence into two kinds:

Yes. I believe so.

1. Existence that is from itself, only example is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Unknowable is the source of Unnamed and Named alike.
Unnamed and Named exist together.
Named is a partial/incomplete/imperfect description of the relationship between Unnamed and Named.
Named is therefore two things; a part of the whole and a partial description of itself.

2. Existence from another, that is everything created i.e. caused to come into existence by God, example is the nose on our face and the whole body of man, and in brief everything with a beginning.

Everything existing begins unnamed. The interaction with other unnamed is a partial naming.
( I think that I am blowing it on this part. I'm probably trying too hard. )

------------------------
I would prefer to frame the issue differently.

There are two kinds of existence, that which I know and that which I have heard of.
To acknowledge that what I have heard of is real, is to acknowledge that the teller is as real as I am. That the teller has existence not dependent upon my existence.

example: I don't know Paris, France but I have seen and heard many accounts of Paris, France. The people there are real whether I ever meet them or not.

If we name the Named as God, then we must acknowledge that as a partial description of a part of the Whole. Only that which we know is properly grasped. What we know is very limited indeed.
-------------------------
That is the best I can do at this time.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Pachomius

Please think over your division of two kinds of existence, and rewrite them as to be more concise, clean, and comprehensible.

No. I can't.

I named the unknowable,
thus naming the unnamable,
and so I was cast out.

and now I am atheist.

My god doesn't fit in your framework.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

In brief, dear pthena, you admit that you cannot think and write more concisely, more cleanly, and more comprehensively.


Anyway, you admit that you exist, or you are not sure at all you exist?

I invite you to read other posts by me in this page.

That should clarify the issues.

MONO




Dear Tok, I like for us two to talk on the basis of honest intelligent productive thinking.


Please, just you and I now work together to answer the question:

"Ultimately, how many kinds of existence do you and I respectively know?"


When you reply, please go right away to your ultimately kinds of existence, and be concise, clean, and comprehensible.


Here are my only two - ultimately two kinds of existence:

1. Existence that is from itself, there is only one example of such existence, namely, God - God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
2. Existence that is from another, examples are you and I and everything that has a beginning, they owe their existence to God.


Remember, when you reply, please right away state your ultimately two kinds of existence, or even more than two if you will, okay?



Nota bene: If dear Tok you want me to talk on another basis of thinking, than the one I mention above, please be concise, clean, and comprehensible, with your basis of thinking.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius


[ . . . ]


I get the feeling you really do not want an intelligent conversation or reasoning.

Dear pthena, please just tell me right away, instead of asking me to read your past posts.


That is seemingly an escape from you to engage me on honest intelligent productive thinking.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Pachomius

In brief, dear pthena, you admit that you cannot think and write more concisely, more cleanly, and more comprehensively.


Anyway, you admit that you exist, or you are not sure at all you exist?

I invite you to read other posts by me in this page.

That should clarify the issues.

.

a reply to: Pachomius
"Existence is the state of being alive or being real. the fact or state of living or having objective reality."
The nature or type of existence is "is the ability of an entity to interact with physical or mental reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property of being"
Two main characteristics of existence...kindly note "(1) physical or (2)mental reality"
Can a spiritual entity or non physical display such characteristics...can such a being have physical contact or have mental capacity...how does one think without a brain or without the neutrons or brainwave to achieve this?
You would need to prove that non-material life can exist, and can think, and have knowledge, and create matter from nothing. Why not just say that the what exists is what exists?
Otherwise your argument is such:

Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
Spiritual beings can exist eternally without cause.
Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
Spiritual beings can store, retrieve, and creatively process information.
Spiritual beings are constantly learning, or are able to somehow have knowledge without ever being educated.
Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.
Is this the logic or reasoning you are basing your argument on.....

a reply to: Pachomius

Here is a statement made by me:

Unknowable is the source of Unnamed and Named alike.
Unnamed and Named exist together.

There are three labels in this statement.
Which would you point to as God ?

a reply to: pthena

I would go for source.