Infinitely simple

Thomas Aquinas, wrote in Summa Theologica that because God is infinitely simple, God can only appear to the finite mind as infinitely complex.

If we follow this line of thought the more complex a subject the further away we are from the simplicity of what God truly is. So with metaphysics we are not getting close to our divine self, but rather distancing ourselves from the core. As humans, perhaps we are free to travel where we wish, so that is not a problem. Its more of a choice, certainly it seems that humanity as a whole likes to keep its distance from God. Or some would say God likes to keep his distance from us.
In an attempt to keep it simple! I will reiterate that which has been uttered so many times before. Rather than follow the normal image of what God is in a particular religious style. How about we just see God as pure Love. No beard, no books needed, no angels (angles) just that.Not only that, but available to all those who wish to re-visit.

reply to post by ancientthunder


I would see it as pure consciousness.

No beard

Lol.

Btw, is that Heffernan?

reply to post by ancientthunder


God seems to be something else, somewhere else. When really there is nothing 'else'.
This is why he says have no 'other'.

When I think of God, I picture myself at a table playing cards with Hitler, Tim Tebow, Muhammad, Hugh Hefner, and four clones of Britney Spears.

The Britney's are harmonizing Hit Me Baby One more Time while Hitler babbles in German about zionism, Hefner plots to seduce the Britney's, Tebow plots to stop Hefner, and Muhammad dreams of his cave. Meanwhile, I have a full house so I go all in.

I use my winnings to buy a metal detector, which I give to the 9th baby born on the 5th day after the eclipse.

Endless nonsense.

reply to post by ancientthunder


I also believe that "god" can be found in simplicity.

I am one that leans towards a Pantheistic ideal of god that says everything, or the lack of anything, is god. It seems the simplest form of god to me and yet so grand that any piece of the whole should be awed by grand scale that is god. I like to think the bible is even right in the aspect that it says we are created in god's image, which would technically be true is we are a part of god.

When I speak of everything and nothing, I mean even what exists outside of our Universe...so all of existence and non-existence, really. Wish I had a single word for that, though I spose I could just say infinity.

reply to post by ancientthunder


Pure love? I'm unsure about that. Love makes people do crazy things. Pure consciousness? What about when you're asleep or in a coma?

By definition, if a God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, he would have to be everything. Read (with great difficulty) Spinoza's Ethics and find a fairly logical conclusion of what God is. We, of course, already call it the universe.

Now that is infinitely simple.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I don´t know what considering God as pure consciousness has to do with a human, being asleep or in a coma, or how the one disqualifies the other.

It´s not really relevant to my point but people dream when they sleep and even awakened coma patients have been known to remember things from during their coma.

Anyways what I´m saying is there is nothing but consciousness, everything else, our reality, we, are a construct of this one consciousness, and some may call it "god", at least that's my view.

I also don't agree with the "god is love" thing. Love is only a part of it. It is everything, it is complete. It encompasses all.

If god created this universe,, god would have to be very complex himself ( in order to have the means, concepts, and materials to fashion a universe into existence)...,. thats not to say he is as complex as what the universe is our can do,,, for humans are complex,, yet we can make machines and computers that do activities and compute data with far more precision, speed, accuracy, and complexity then we ourselves could,, but we had to be complex enough to come up with and establish these computers and machines...

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

I don´t know what considering God as pure consciousness has to do with a human, being asleep or in a coma, or how the one disqualifies the other.

It´s not really relevant to my point but people dream when they sleep and even awakened coma patients have been known to remember things from during their coma.

Anyways what I´m saying is there is nothing but consciousness, everything else, our reality, we, are a construct of this one consciousness, and some may call it "god", at least that's my view.

I also don't agree with the "god is love" thing. Love is only a part of it. It is everything, it is complete. It encompasses all.

conscious |ˈkänCHəs|
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
• having knowledge of something; aware: we are conscious of the extent of the problem.

How about you explain to me what pure consciousness is and then I might begin to understand, because according to the definition, a living thing must be awake to be conscious. Something that is asleep, isn't awake.

Consciousness is a by-product of life. As far as we know, life exists only on earth (though not likely). How does consciousness extend to everything if it so far exists only on earth?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Like I said it is my view.

But it is partly based on Quantum physics, in particular certain experiments that show beyond a doubt that reality, or matter, adapts to human consciousness, showing us that consciousness precedes our physical reality.

It is my view that human souls are compartmentalised units of one whole consciousness, having a 3d physical human experience.

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"But it is partly based on Quantum physics, in particular certain experiments that show beyond a doubt that reality, or matter, adapts to human consciousness, showing us that consciousness precedes our physical reality. "


can you explain how certain experiments show that beyond a doubt that reality, or matter, adapts to human consciousness and how that shows consciousness precedes physical reality?


Of course reality and matter adapt to human consciousness,.,. human consciousness think id like to dig a hole,, and so consciousness adapts the matter of flat ground,,,

reply to post by ImaFungi

Of course reality and matter adapt to human consciousness,.,. human consciousness think id like to dig a hole,, and so consciousness adapts the matter of flat ground,,,

So is consciousness doing the actual work, or our muscles?

I am talking about consciousness directly influencing reality. Reality adapting to what we KNOW. Not what we DO.

The op of this thread is a nice introduction,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For more in depth, this thread, from page 4 on or so.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plus all the experiments linked in those threads,

www.sciencedaily.com...

arstechnica.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Mind you, the implications are not spelled out for you in these experiments.

Please study them thorroughly before you respond with a "debunk".

I hope you'll find it interesting, I know I sure do.

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Like I said it is my view.

But it is partly based on Quantum physics, in particular certain experiments that show beyond a doubt that reality, or matter, adapts to human consciousness, showing us that consciousness precedes our physical reality.

It is my view that human souls are compartmentalised units of one whole consciousness, having a 3d physical human experience.

Interesting view. Of course this is the New Age interpretation of those experiments, a view that not many scientists share.

I just want to ask: What do you mean by consciousness? If we shared a consciousness, wouldn't you able to feel what I'm feeling right now?

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


yea i dont know the real implication or meaning,, so i dont know what you think it means,, what it implies,, how you use that obvious information to justify mystical and other metaphysical concepts as truth,.,.,.

if we have a lab,,,, and capture particles in any way and observe them,,, weird things will happen,, because we have to do certain things to observe them,,when naturally these particles are always doing their duty vibrating and moving non stop at high speeds in whatever atomic situation they are in as well as moving in the 4th dimension and expansion of the universe,.,..


the way you make it sound is as if we look at the particle and it sees we are looking so does a dance or puts on a show,,,, or we look at a particle and we are controlling where the particle goes with our consciousness projected through our eyeballs,,

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Interesting view. Of course this is the New Age interpretation of those experiments, a view that not many scientists share.

It is not just an interpretation, it is a undeniable conclusion, there is no other implication. The part about our consciousness affecting the results in these experiments, that is.

There is nothing else that could be causing it. If we don't observe, every possible outcome happens. If we do observe, only one possible outcome can occur. Not only that but results even adapt to what we know in the future, crossing the boundaries of space and time.

There is really no other explanation, consciousness is playing a causal part in all of this.

Most scientist acknowledge the weird result, but don't explain them, and they don't dare to utter the blatantly obvious and simple truth, out of fear of ridicule and paradigm bias.

I just want to ask: What do you mean by consciousness? If we shared a consciousness, wouldn't you able to feel what I'm feeling right now?

Like I said, we are compartmentalised units, we have to be in order to have this human experience. but the connection is there.

What do you think the psychic stuff is all about? Or don't you believe in that?

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"If we don't observe, every possible outcome happens"

what does this mean?

reply to post by ImaFungi

if we have a lab,,,, and capture particles in any way and observe them,,, weird things will happen,, because we have to do certain things to observe them,,when naturally these particles are always doing their duty vibrating and moving non stop at high speeds in whatever atomic situation they are in as well as moving in the 4th dimension and expansion of the universe,.,..

This is the sort of answer I expect from someone that did weeks worth of study in half an hour.

Look, I've had this discussion many times before, these experiments prove that it is not the equipment or setup of the experiment that is the cause for these "unexplainable" results. That is why I specifically mentioned them.

Frankly, it is an idiotic suggestion, cause if it was the case, then Quantum Physics would not be a mystery.

Scientists can't explain these results, but you figured it out in an half an hour, it's the experiment itself.

Bravo, you deserve a Nobel prize. All these years of mystery,and it turns out it was the setup every single time.

Please my friend, this is breakfast for me, so don't insult me.

Why do you think I asked you to study them before coming back with a "debunk"?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by MightyPenfriend

 

"If we don't observe, every possible outcome happens"

what does this mean?

It means that if you present a particle with multiple paths, it will take all of them, as long as you can't tell which one it took. It interferes with itself and creates an interference pattern on a screen that will be observed afterwards.

If we look at which path it takes, it can only take one path. It doesn't interfere with itself, and doesn't create an interference pattern on the screen.

As said, please read up on the links I presented, cause this is basic stuff.

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


can you simply tell me what you mean and think the implications of the results are?

quantum mechanics is the mechanics of atoms right?

so your saying when we zoom in to view quantum particles,, by looking at the particles we change it in some fundamental way? we move it by looking at it? we change its charge or spin by looking at it? we stop it from moving when we look at it?

reply to post by MightyPenfriend


"It means that if you present a particle with multiple paths, it will take all of them, as long as you can't tell which one it took."

ok,,, so far so good i think,,,,,,, " as long as you cant tell which one it took" meaning if you didnt measure the action of its travels or if you closed your eyes?



"It interferes with itself and creates an interference pattern on a screen that will be observed afterwards."

ok and this is how even without measuring its mode of travel,,, we know it took all paths that were available to travel,, because the result is that its pattern is all over the screen ( or something)


"If we look at which path it takes, it can only take one path. It doesn't interfere with itself, and doesn't create an interference pattern on the screen. "

ok,,, and we think the reason for this is,,, because the particle knows we are watching it so it behaves? we cant see how it really operates with our measurements? it has a relationship with space it self that allows it to spread out in ways we cannot comprehend?