Proof of existense of god

reply to post by taoistguy


What if everything and nothing co-exist together? Just as good and bad, young and old, big and small, etc. co-exist, so does everything and nothing.

Everything is the positive, the universe that can bee seen around us. The nothing is the negative, the consciousness that sees the everything. Where do the positive and negative meet? At zero. What if zero is everything? But what if it's nothing as well?

Sorry for rambling but I'm just fascinated by this kind of stuff. Existence is an oxymoron, a contradiction, the greatest contradiction in fact, yet it is still here when it shouldn't be. It blows my mind thinking about it.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


haha, yes, it's mysterious.
the 2 opposites, like heads and tails of a coin. people are fixated on one side or the other. or both and that confuses them. in reality it is the coin itsel that is the truth. it is the whole and contains both the yin and the yang.

kx12x
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Well, I get what you mean and that could be very subjective. Some people might agree while others might see things differently (as we all know well) so I don't want to go too much into that. What I'm really interested in is, the beginning of all beginnings, the very start, not of humans or galaxies, but of "existence" itself.

To understand that, one would need resolve the uni/multi-verse question to sufficient confidence of fidelity that terms like "existence" become attached to transforms dependent and interdependent on the reference frame of a singular extent universe, groupings or families of similar singular universes, layered spatial-dimensional universes, layered temporal-dimensional universes, universal fabrics incorporating millions of universes into a fabric, and many many many many other potentialities.

Our universe could be a tiny bubble in a fizzy foam of other universes, or a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble etc. among other similarly shaped expressions.

You also must contend with the prospect of falling into the trap of exponential "who created that?" where party "A1" created this universe, and possibly others, but, was there a party "B2"" that created "A1", and "C3" that made "B2", "D4" holding responsibility for "C3", and so on down the line of incorporation such that it's a bottomless pit of infinite succession, and an entirely worthless venture in that respect.

The better course of action is to worry concern oneself with oneself in being accountable for oneself and what one can maintain and affect.
If you can't affect something and it can't affect you, then, it's pretty irrelevant to worry about things that have no legitimate real concern.

Hold accountability for what can be accounted for and stick with that.
Spooky conjectures that offer zero threads of any real evidence to pursue toward any other tangible breadcrumb are endeavors in futility.

Do I concern myself with the name brand toilet paper the Queen of England uses?
No, and she's a real person.
To what effect would concerning myself with any agency of personality as it apples to "existence"?
Are they going to RSVP to my invitations to tea? Send me holiday cards?

kx12x

You can't create from nothingness and everything has an origin to be traced back.

Who says, what proof, old limited idea.

No beginning and no end - infinity. Not a concept that the finite brain can wrap itself around.

Doesn't prove or disprove a 'creator' god - just proves limitless existence.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


gosh. that's very long-winded and complicated and technical, but i agree, (I think.)

you could have just said it's all fractal.

reply to post by taoistguy


Yes, the coin analogy is a good one.

Take a quarter for example, the heads is the physical while the tails is the spiritual, the middle is where they meet. The ridges of the quarter around the outer edge are the individuals or us (animals included).

Except this quarter is infinitely big and there are infinite finite ridges or individuals around the outer rim. We are where the everything and nothing meet, we are the zero. We exist and don't exist at the same time, we're a figment of our own imaginations. Nothing is real but everything is real at the same time.

We sure live in a crazy and mysterious world when you really start to think about it.

reply to post by taoistguy


Complicated universe requires complicated answers.

If someone wants simple answers then, well, they're going to get a "simple god" if that's what they're looking for.

You get what you pay for, regardless the currency.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


meh, it's all simple really. why overcomplicate things?

reply to post by taoistguy


That would mean our method is, at least in part, true, but we have no way to know that, so it can only be potentially true.

I can sense blue skies, but that does not mean they exist as anything beyond a sense -- a concept that God has created for me to see.

What are the concepts and why must we put them into words or images to see them? Are they the awareness of God, placed into the Word of God, by his Holy Spirit?

How do you image them? How do you measure consciousness, will, and the light? There is only your sense that has been given to you, but the senses, we know, can be different for different people, and life.

We cannot image or measure God, unless he wants us to.

Ask yourself what does the light really look like. Is it the form of a tree, a fish, an electron, a photon?

The only thing I would say, is that it is the light by which God has given us sight of his awareness -- his concepts.

Similar to these words being the way you can see my concepts, yet my words are confined where the light is not. It can be the light to all senses.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


your words shine.

AliceBleachWhite

kx12x
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Well, I get what you mean and that could be very subjective. Some people might agree while others might see things differently (as we all know well) so I don't want to go too much into that. What I'm really interested in is, the beginning of all beginnings, the very start, not of humans or galaxies, but of "existence" itself.

To understand that, one would need resolve the uni/multi-verse question to sufficient confidence of fidelity that terms like "existence" become attached to transforms dependent and interdependent on the reference frame of a singular extent universe, groupings or families of similar singular universes, layered spatial-dimensional universes, layered temporal-dimensional universes, universal fabrics incorporating millions of universes into a fabric, and many many many many other potentialities.

Our universe could be a tiny bubble in a fizzy foam of other universes, or a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble etc. among other similarly shaped expressions.

You also must contend with the prospect of falling into the trap of exponential "who created that?" where party "A1" created this universe, and possibly others, but, was there a party "B2"" that created "A1", and "C3" that made "B2", "D4" holding responsibility for "C3", and so on down the line of incorporation such that it's a bottomless pit of infinite succession, and an entirely worthless venture in that respect.

The better course of action is to worry concern oneself with oneself in being accountable for oneself and what one can maintain and affect.

If you can't affect something and it can't affect you, then, it's pretty irrelevant to worry about things that have no legitimate real concern.

Hold accountability for what can be accounted for and stick with that.
Spooky conjectures that offer zero threads of any real evidence to pursue toward any other tangible breadcrumb are endeavors in futility.

Do I concern myself with the name brand toilet paper the Queen of England uses?
No, and she's a real person.
To what effect would concerning myself with any agency of personality as it apples to "existence"?
Are they going to RSVP to my invitations to tea? Send me holiday cards?

reply to post by taoistguy


I have nothing against science, only the way people use / see it. They use it in place of faith and that is disheartening.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


yin and yang. it balances out somewhere in the middle.

"The better course of action is to worry concern oneself with oneself in being accountable for oneself and what one can maintain and affect"


I think there is precious little time left for you to realize that because we are all part of the "coin" being accountable for the whole (and its parts) is being accountable for oneself.

reply to post by kx12x


The proof is in the pudding!

reply to post by TheGoods


yes, we are each other. we are one.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I just wanted to say that I enjoy how you think. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Seeing both sides of the coin at the same time is something that most cant do.

reply to post by kx12x


Anyone familiar with the explanation provided by Vedanta cosmology? Just bringing this up because I see some similiar views posted here...

All matter throughout the universe is the outcome of one primal matter called Âkâsha; and all force, whether gravitation, attraction or repulsion, or life, is the outcome of one primal force called Prâna. Prana acting on Akasha is creating or projecting4 the universe. At the beginning of a cycle, Akasha is motionless, unmanifested. Then Prana begins to act, more and more, creating grosser and grosser forms out of Akasha — plants, animals, men, stars, and so on. After an incalculable time this evolution ceases and involution begins, everything being resolved back through finer and finer forms into the original Akasha and Prana, when a new cycle follows. Now there is something beyond Akasha and Prana. Both can be resolved into a third thing called Mahat — the Cosmic Mind. This Cosmic Mind does not create Akasha and Prana, but changes itself into them.

reply to post by kx12x


I think you are onto something here, but you have missed out on what the infinite must be to be absolute infinite.

- For a space to be absolute infinite, it must be absolute empty.

- A absolute empty space is absolute neutral.

- That makes the infinite an absolute constant.

- Since the absolute infinite is an absolute constant, its timeline is also absolute constant.
Time does pass, but the absolute empty space never changes.

The infinite must be absolute empty to have always existed, and for it to always exist.

One of the major differences between finite and the infinite is that. Finite always changes and the infinite never does, because it is an absolute constant.


The Big question is: How did the absolute infinite empty space form finite?

- Finite is compressed energy. The infinite is absolute neutral energy.

The absolute infinite empty space must have compressed it self to form finite. But how is that possible when the absolute empty space is also an absolute constant?

The infinite must have a mind of its own to be able to create a change. There are no other alternatives.

reply to post by spy66


Wonder if you read my post... Seems like you are a follower of Vedanta cosmology as well since your deductions seem to be very similar. :-)