How I know God exists by dividing existence into permanent existence and transient existence.

a reply to: Deetermined

Thanks a lot for your finding out about the x at the top right corner, to click on it for returning to edit mode.


Now I like to introduce you to two approaches to God, namely:

God from reason and God from revelation.

I see clearly that you approach God from revelation, yes?

I am into knowing God from reason, and thus I define God as follows:
God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

Tell me, what is your definition of God? In your approach which is grounded on revelation.

a reply to: Deetermined

No, it started when I met your "burning bush" orb of fire out over the ocean, while standing on a deserted Northern beach one night, watching the storm clouds roll in

The Roman Catholic Cathedral in our city is literally named after the thing I met, St Mary's "Star of the Sea" Cathedral

They have a stainglass window dedicated to it. A orb of fire out over the sea

They show that burning orb, as Mary carrying Jesus

Self-annihilation was just the only way to open certain doors. They called it "Catharsis". "Touching a coal to the lips". It removes pain and deeply repressed emotion

It is too confronting for most

They don't show you "half-truths" or "deceive" you. That is a misunderstanding by those who are not prepared to go through what they need to, in order to know the things they have to teach

Because they are not allowed to give you the answer

They can only direct your line of thinking, in such a way that it creates the potential for you to work out something for yourself

They lead you from one false thought, to another, to another, so that you start to understand from what things "are not", what they more likely "are"

You need to be willing to burn away the shadows, to find the light

Most people cannot handle burning in this way

So they are given the option to call to the security of religion

But it is the exact same entities on either side

I had to go through literally hundreds, if not thousands, of translations, and LAYERS of false translations, over 10 years, in order to finally see not only the correct basis for the Biblical translations underneath the veil, but how they correlate to everything else

I spent 10 years, being driven insane, wondering why I was being made to learn and understand certain founding principles of symbols, languages, philosophy, physics and everything else

Why would I get clear visions in my head of things such as physics principles, if those things would be laughed at when I try tell people?

Why would they teach me things that are wrong?

Why? Because they aren't wrong. I just didn't know how they all fit together. Or, they are principles that this world does not understand yet

It took 7 long years of enduring physical and mental tortures, and what you call "deception", before I started seeing how all the pieces fit together

My study of mythos such as Egyptian, Sumerian and Norse, suddenly started to align with my Biblical translations. In such a way that they all then suddenly made sense

Not just the mythos and translations. But the phonetic words and meanings aligned

And these clicked with the study of the symbols we use for numbers and alphanumeric systems

Which aligned to physics

Which aligned to astrology

Which aligned to misunderstood Biblical and philosophical principles

It isn't deception. The knowledge is protected. You have to prove you want it, over the veil translations and "savior"

They are the teachings (keys) of Solomon. Alignment of the body, to the lands, the planets and the stars

You'll never know the source of your creation through prayer, scriptures and obedience. This is subsistence

Even we can program mindless robots

They are looking for those who will go through hell, to know more than is offered

The idea is not to use the parent alignment of the two fallen Old and New Testament temples

It is to write your own book and effect your own alignment. "Rebuild your temple"

A Mother and Father birth a new creation

They can't just give you the throne of Solomon, you need to earn it

a reply to: Compendium

I spent 10 years, being driven insane, wondering why I was being made to learn and understand certain founding principles of symbols, languages, philosophy, physics and everything else

Well, it sounds more like they did drive you insane and convinced you to focus and worship worldly things in their effort to lead you astray from knowing and understanding the one true God and heavenly things. Satan tried that on Jesus when he fasted in the wilderness for 40 days. Jesus knew better and rebuked him. The Bible tells us that even Satan has the ability to disguise himself as an angel of light to deceive the masses.

a reply to: Pachomius

Now I like to introduce you to two approaches to God, namely:

God from reason and God from revelation.

I see clearly that you approach God from revelation, yes?

I am into knowing God from reason, and thus I define God as follows:
God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

Tell me, what is your definition of God? In your approach which is grounded on revelation.

This is the hard part because revelation really comes from the Holy Spirit and you never know at what point in your life God will reveal himself, but the Bible tells us that those who are truly seeking Him will find him and He will make himself known.

For me, I've always believed in God from the time I was a child, I just didn't know and understand what it meant to have a personal relationship with Him. Like a lot of people (unfortunately), I didn't find out until I was almost 30 and I was going through a very stressful and trying time in my life. Up until that time, I pretty much lived life the way I wanted instead of the way I knew God wanted me to live. I finally reached a point where I told God that I was surrendering my stubborn and selfish ways to Him so He would lead me out of the dilemma I had put myself in. I had a dream where God/Jesus reassured me that everything was going to be just fine if I just trusted Him to lead me on what to do. I listened and it worked! After that, I have spent my years (25 years since that time) thanking him joyfully for everything He has blessed me with since then. The more I pray, give thanks, and ask for His guidance, the closer we become and the more I see Him working in my life and the lives of those around me. I wouldn't trade this sense of peace and joy I have for anything else in the world, especially during these troubled times the world is going through, which are going to get worse and test everyone to their max. The time of delusion that the Bible speaks of is here.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You, dear Disraeli, obviously are into thinking about God.

What would you say about my division of man's knowledge of God into two kinds, from the aspect of how he comes to know God.

Here as follows is my division of man's knowledge of God:
God from reason and God from revelation.

I see clearly that you approach God from revelation, yes?

I am into knowing God from reason, and I define God as follows:
God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

Tell me, what is your definition of God? In your approach which is grounded on revelation.

a reply to: Deetermined

Just because we can't see the invisible God doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The universe doesn't operate on it's own accord because it doesn't have any intelligence. You claim to understand this, yet you argue against it at the same time.

Because that's how I see it. We living beings have information stored in our DNA down to microbes out of that emerges intelligence.
Our universe has vast amounts of information stored in light f.e. and probably a few other ways. It seems logical out of that emerges an alien (from our pount of view) intelligence.

When did WE create the FORMULA for the laws of physics and nature to run by? We didn't. Just because we're able to observe and discover things that happen in nature doesn't mean we created them to happen that way.

Again that's not what I am saying.
You're believing in a creator to me that doesn't make sense. Because which intelligence would have designed him? And if he existed before there was an universe where did he live?
It doesn't solve any questions it just adds new bigger ones.

Summary: the argument would be
'because the universe contains intelligent life and has the capacity to store information, we can conclude the universe is intelligent.

Granted that doesn't spell out 'God exists', but it is logical and leaves at least a window open for something-like-God to exist.
Which is more than you and Pacho got to offer in your argumentation.

Dear Peeple, are you of the conviction that there was nothingness which turns into somethingness, so no creator is needed at all?

a reply to: Pachomius

No.

a reply to: Pachomius

I think you are not considering this with any serious thought. That is far too shallow a supposition.

What do you mean by transient? All matter is fluid in state. It relates in molecular patterns. Relativity extends to everything that exists, even light, anti matter, dark matter (if it exists), literally all that is in this dimension of space and time. If there is a Creator then that Intelligence is relative to this Creation too, in a relationship with it. Laws are made by the relativity between everything operating to form this reality. It is all physics and bound by law. Law is established by the relationship between components.

There is no chaos here. The only chaos is in the human being and even that could be fathomed as predictable set responses if enough information could be analysed. Kind of a "Minority Report" physics.

The stars, light, planets, black holes are not stable. They are fluid. All matter is ultimately fluid and can't hold form. A human body has to keep replicating a pattern to hold form through a life time before the DNA coding becomes too corrupted, corrupted data so to speak.

It's all on the move. It is not transient. There is a finite amount of information coded into the cosmos that cannot stand still. I believe it is an infinitely contracting and expanding cosmic egg. How long this has been going on who knows? How many big bangs have their been and how many more to go? It is infinite in my estimation.

The information explodes. The universe keeps expanding until the force of the explosion is spent. Then all the matter starts contracting again becoming more and more dense, getting hotter and hotter until the information is so contracted the stresses of relativity explode it apart once again.

There is no other way it could work, but that. I know it is happening that way. Are we living the first Big Bang? The odds are against it being so. How many Zions have there been Neo? How many times have you done this before? (just to help you understand what I mean).

Might our ever expanding and contracting universe be one among an infinite amount of universes like drops from a pipette in a cosmic ocean? Might the universes too be ever contracting and expanding as they are drawn closer and closer together until their relativity makes them explode in multiverse big bangs? All these relating multiverses could be drops in an even bigger cosmic ocean, again contracting and exploding accordingly. It could be infinite. Again, that seems the more rational assumption. How can you have an ocean when you only have one drop?

Every time I look into the sky I know I am looking at eternity. Eternity is here and now. It is Alpha and Omega in this dimension. Space never ends. Eternity is a physical fact.

If eternity is forever then it is able to accommodate infinite information metamorphoses. Where will we find the Creator? The Presence among us could be a mere bot sent to keep a watchful EYE of surveillance. The Creator is the one who sowed the seed. There Creator is the Intelligence that used the pipette to make the ocean, the one who put the information in this dimension. Even if a bot, we still have access through the bot to the Source of all that is. Jesus said that the Creator is Spirit. Who can know the Mystery of the Origins of Information?

Remember our place. We are mutated monkeys beneath the stars. Our limited brains and imagination, our eyes and ears organic and imprecise machines and we only hold healthy form for three score years and ten. Our perception is too small to perceive our Creator. No man sees His face and lives. You're just a creature like the others, Job.

a reply to: Pachomius
Yes, there are two ways of knowing God, but to my mind reason does not give sufficient knowledge of God. Philosophical "proofs of God" can perhaps show that a God exists, but they don't show what kind of God exists. The classic case being Anselm's demonstration that a "greatest possible thing" must exist by logical necessity, which doesn't actually give any information about him beyond "greatest possible". The real problem is that the reality of God is so much greater than any human mind, that no human mind can possibly contain it. That is the original meaning of the word "incomprehensible", which theology applies to God.

More than a decade ago, a philospher on this site challenged Christians to supply a definition of their God, and the answer I gave is below;

+++ +++

Let's make it a really trinitarian one;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

a reply to: Tarantula777

Dear Tarantula, you ask:
What do you mean by transient?

I mean by transient 'not permanent'.

Everything that we humans talk about, they are transient, not permanent.

If you don't accept that, then point out to me something that is not transient, but permanent.


------------------------

originally posted by: Pachomius
By permanent existence I mean an existence that cannot ever become extinct i.e. not exist anymore, there is only one example of permanent existence, namely, God.

By transient existence I mean an existence that has a beginning and an ending, for example, you and I, we have a beginning with our conception in our mother's womb, and an ending at our death.

How does transient existence lead to the existence of God?

Simple: Because transient existence inevitably implicates the existence of God, the permanent and self-existent agent.

Wherefore, my definition of God is the following: God is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

a reply to: Tarantula777

I believe it is an infinitely contracting and expanding cosmic egg. How long this has been going on who knows? How many big bangs have their been and how many more to go? It is infinite in my estimation.

The information explodes. The universe keeps expanding until the force of the explosion is spent. Then all the matter starts contracting again becoming more and more dense, getting hotter and hotter until the information is so contracted the stresses of relativity explode it apart once again.

2 Peter 3:10-13

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,

12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Dear Disraeli, you are into the approach to God from revelation, while I am into the approach to God from reason.

But I am certain that you and I we concur on my division of existence into permanent existence for God and transient existence for man and everything that is not God, and transient existence comes from the permanent existence that is God.

Now, you say that: "Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place."

You mean that God made something out of nothing as the material out of which He made something?

I cannot agree with you on that, for nothing cannot ever be any material out of which something can be crafted, I submit even God cannot do that.

My position is that God created everything transient using Himself as the material for His creation of transient things.

Would that be acceptable to you even when you know God to exist by the approach to God from revelation?

a reply to: Pachomius
I suspect your answer becomes Monism, because it eliminates any real distinction between God and Creation. And, as my outline says, they need to be distinct, because otherwise there is no communication, no relationship.
That is the issue which "ex nihilo" theory is designed to overcome.

a reply to: Pachomius

You mean that God made something out of nothing as the material out of which He made something?

I cannot agree with you on that, for nothing cannot ever be any material out of which something can be crafted, I submit even God cannot do that.

My position is that God created everything transient using Himself as the material for His creation of transient things.

That's an interesting theory, but with God, was that really necessary? Here are some clues that might help us...

Genesis 1:3 - And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Psalm 33:6 - By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Psalm 33:9 - For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

Isaiah 48:13 - My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.

Matthew 19:26 - But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Romans 4:17 - As it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

Hebrews 11:3 - By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

John 1:3 - All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Well technically God and the Laws, would be eternal, while anything but would be immortal, while the universe slowly gets darker an more empty. Then O Hollowed One takes a back door, an let that universe collapse unto itself making another probably, while the immortal screams in agony in giant hole.

Lord knows those thing will still be around long after.

Well of you want to go the Gnostic route, it cause the Demiurge, the God of the O.T, created all mater but is completely ignorant of where his own origins or source of power comes. Which came from Sophia, which was connected to the Monad along with the other Aeons.

Sophia, the Aeons, an the Monad took the form of the Serpent in one of the books, an ended up tricking the Demiurge by making an Adam an Eve, which acted as a conduit to keep the Demiurge grounded unknowingly, and getting bigger.

So with the mercy of Christ, the Minad( don't tell Pythagorasists anything), God allowed the Demiurge an his creations to exist.

“If the flesh came into being because of spirit it is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of body it is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.”
-Gospel of Thomas 29

a reply to: Deetermined

You dear Dee are talking from your approach by way of knowing "God from revelation."
That is why you bring forth Bible verses.


I am talking by way of knowing "God from reason."

This is how I reason out to the existence of God:
1. We are transient entities, i.e. we have a beginning at conception in our mother's womb and an ending at death - from womb to tomb.
2. This fact and truth implicate inevitably an entity that is permanent and self-existent, wherefore the source of us transient entities.
3. That is why I define God as follows:

God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

a reply to: Pachomius
If god is the operator of man then there is no freewil.

a reply to: Pachomius

Dear Disraeli, you are into the approach to God from revelation, while I am into the approach to God from reason.

The Revelation Disraeli uses is from God, a being separate from his creation. Without that separation we could not have the
REVELATION and you could never develop REASON (philosophical reasoning), that is what your are doing here, pursuing Philosophic reasoning to put God in a place you want him. You cannot approach God with your Reasoning you must come to him by Jesus Christ, it is the only way.

Revelation reveals that it is God who wants us to be in a place he wants us. It is our reasoning that keeps us from going to or being in that place he wants us. That is he wants us "In Christ" read Eph 1 to see what happens to a man (Jew or Gentile) in Christ.

Addressing all persons here who know God from revelation, suppose I ask you to define God in the shortest number of words, what will be your each one's respective definition of God?

From my part as a person who knows God from reason, here is my definition of God as follows:
God is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.