For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

reply to post by Aphorism


There is no question as to whether God exists, regardless of who you are; a believer or a non-believer - quite rightly said OP

The question everyone should collectively ask from both a scientific and a religious stance is: What is it?

Believers will say that God is a single celestial entity that was/is solely responsible for creating the heavens and the Earth. God is all seeing and is apparently everywhere.
Non-believers will say that no such celestial entity exists and will back their argument up with science, inadvertently supporting the religious stance; that everything came from one single celestial point, being solely responsible for creating the heavens and the Earth.


What needs to happen is a joining of Science & Religion... I call it Relience (Reli-ence; where Science and Relligion meet exactly half way). A combining of information that we can all rely on and know to be true because we have the full picture.


I already understand what God is because of Relience. I understand that everything was/is built upon a single point in space time - as do others. Some just say that it was a Big Bang - others say that "someone" built it.

The word God is simply a way to condense complicated mathematics in order to explain how the universe was created... Imagine how misconstrued the theory of general relativity would be if it were simply a tale of chinese-whispers passed on from generation to generation... let alone the creation of everything.

reply to post by Aphorism

Aphorism
Basically that everything is God. We call it the universe now.

Is Everything (what we call the universe now) - just a word?

Aphorism
Plainly stated, since God is only ever found within books, art, rhetoric and from various forms of human expression—indeed, we cannot know about God any other way—we must assume that this is as what, as where, and as how, God exists. This subject we can deny or have an opinion about; this character we pray to; this character we refuse to contemplate. From what we can confirm, it exists as a word in its fundamental form. All talk about God is talk about this word.

Therefor, I agree with the theists that God exists, but only insofar as it exists as a word in a book.

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.

theopendoorway.org...

God is just a word which points to all that is - the totality of reality.

reply to post by crzayfool


That's actually an awesome example. What if we renamed the theory of relativity 'Thor' and started worshiping it? Same thing as God.

ETA: I just realized that the first letters for "THeory Of Relativity" literally spell Thor. Awesome example is awesome.

WE all have gifts,we all bring something to the table, instead of finding the differences in our opinions, find common ground,be thankful.

Consciousness is everything,be aware, aware of our words, aware of how they affect others, how did we become so disconnected?

I haven't read what has been posted today yet, I wonder what has been said.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Is Everything (what we call the universe now) - just a word?

The things we name are not words. Only the names are words. The neat part about it is, one can choose to pray to any name he desires.

What are we still discussing this for?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


We? My reply was to someone else.

reply to post by Aphorism


My question was to you as the creator of a thread that is still inexplicably active. Where do we go from here?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

My question was to you as the creator of a thread that is still inexplicably active. Where do we go from here?

The path not the destination, right? On to the next one I suppose.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Aphorism

 

My question was to you as the creator of a thread that is still inexplicably active. Where do we go from here?

around in a circle

AfterInfinity
Where do we go from here?

No escape from here.
Eternal here.

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

My question was to you as the creator of a thread that is still inexplicably active. Where do we go from here?

The path not the destination, right? On to the next one I suppose.

You are still not understanding the question. But I suppose in order to understand the question, you must first understand what you wanted to achieve in posting this thread. Have you achieved it? If so, what was it? If not, why are you not satisfied? That should give you some idea what the next step could be.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Have you not figured out what this particular posters intentions are yet?

Aphorism
All one has to do is put the word "God" in the title of the thread to bring out the usual dogmatists.

Itisnowagain
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Have you not figured out what this particular posters intentions are yet?

Aphorism
All one has to do is put the word "God" in the title of the thread to bring out the usual dogmatists.

edit on 10-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I'm not quite convinced that this thread had such trollish motivations behind it. And yes, that would be a trollish motivation. There are much simpler and more direct means of demonstrating that claim. I trust Aphorism wouldn't resort to a long-winded and pointless round of blathering just to make such a simple point. Unless, Aphorism, you would like to correct me in that instance of educated assumption...?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Have you ever thought that this poster writes so so similar to Lesmisantrope?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Similar, but not identical. And I have no substantial reason to suspect that they are the same person. Furthermore, this tangent has grown perilously off-topic, so I'll just resume lurking until Aphorism sees fit to address my queries.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Maybe he will answer this the question I keep asking.

The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.

What do you think of Spinoza's account of God (above) Aphorism?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

This particular thread was an attempt to throw a wrench into end the whole burden of proof nonsense that plagues the God debate. I was trying, but perhaps failing at it, to shift the burden of proof back to the theists to explain exactly what it is outside of the word that they pray for, live for and die for. I've had no good response yet in that regards.

On a side: Like all my threads, I write in the spirit of Diogenes the Cynic.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What do you think of Spinoza's account of God (above) Aphorism?

I think he chose his name poorly.