It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The "Beyond God" questions
page: 4share:
reply to post by randyvs
Yes, indeed, this is about the first verse of Genesis.
It's based on "God made heaven and earth".
What happened after that is a different kettle of fish, as you know, so yes, I think we're arriving at the same destination.
Yes, indeed, this is about the first verse of Genesis.
It's based on "God made heaven and earth".
What happened after that is a different kettle of fish, as you know, so yes, I think we're arriving at the same destination.
reply to post by Itisnowagain
What you have written is a bare unsupported statement, as I have said.
It comes from nowhere except from your own preferences.
What you have written is a bare unsupported statement, as I have said.
It comes from nowhere except from your own preferences.
reply to post by DISRAELI
Well it's a very detailed explanation of the impossibility of infinite retro generaations.
I love it.
SnF
Well it's a very detailed explanation of the impossibility of infinite retro generaations.
I love it.
SnF
reply to post by randyvs
Thank you.
I think it's a new angle ,at least in the last stage, because traditional Christian philosophy has been wedded to the classic "First Cause" theory, which I'm throwing overboard.
I think it's a new angle ,at least in the last stage, because traditional Christian philosophy has been wedded to the classic "First Cause" theory, which I'm throwing overboard.
edit on 31-7-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
reply to post by DISRAELI
I think I'm getting your meaning more clearly now. The ultimate that made everything (the very beginning; the creator of everything that is). it seems you are asking what created God who created the universe.
I'm not convinced that God and whatever began the ultimate chain of events are separate. I think the energy I spoke of was born (however that came to be) and at that time the energy began to take on form and organization. God was responsible for the later (taking the initial energy that was chaos and from which he was born and creating something from it).
Maybe creation means "i took this blob of clay and made something out of it". It may not mean making the clay itself. What made the blob from which to work - Big Bang or ?. If you think about it there is positive and negative energy. They werent distingishable from one another initially but God insured this happened eventually. Why would god have not done this when creating energy to begin with rather than waiting until later. It makes me assume it wasnt a mess up but rather acting on something that already existed.
With regard to him speaking to people this is debatable and based on interpretation. In the Christian bible you can read a lot of "God spoke to me" stuff but I have heard people say this and what they mean by it equals intuition, a strong hunch or knowing, a coincidence or sign that was divine, etc. how the ancients perceived things must be considered. Lightening or thunder was likely a sign from god as they did not understand it as we now do. This does not mean god doesn't exist. It just means that maybe speaking to people does not mean a literal voice.
To support this from various research venues on near death experiences people report being in the presence of something indescribable; light; divine all knowing presence. When they wake they are often transformed by this and take on these qualities (altruistic, all knowing but not in the sense we think of knowing - rather knowing how connected we are to not only one another but to all that exists. There is a new sense of responsibility that is based on this realizarion of connection. It can change purpose and meaning to levels so sudden and profound that it baffles science. Noone im aware of has come back to say they had a verbal conversation with anyone or anything. It was all done by thought when communication happened.
I think I'm getting your meaning more clearly now. The ultimate that made everything (the very beginning; the creator of everything that is). it seems you are asking what created God who created the universe.
I'm not convinced that God and whatever began the ultimate chain of events are separate. I think the energy I spoke of was born (however that came to be) and at that time the energy began to take on form and organization. God was responsible for the later (taking the initial energy that was chaos and from which he was born and creating something from it).
Maybe creation means "i took this blob of clay and made something out of it". It may not mean making the clay itself. What made the blob from which to work - Big Bang or ?. If you think about it there is positive and negative energy. They werent distingishable from one another initially but God insured this happened eventually. Why would god have not done this when creating energy to begin with rather than waiting until later. It makes me assume it wasnt a mess up but rather acting on something that already existed.
With regard to him speaking to people this is debatable and based on interpretation. In the Christian bible you can read a lot of "God spoke to me" stuff but I have heard people say this and what they mean by it equals intuition, a strong hunch or knowing, a coincidence or sign that was divine, etc. how the ancients perceived things must be considered. Lightening or thunder was likely a sign from god as they did not understand it as we now do. This does not mean god doesn't exist. It just means that maybe speaking to people does not mean a literal voice.
To support this from various research venues on near death experiences people report being in the presence of something indescribable; light; divine all knowing presence. When they wake they are often transformed by this and take on these qualities (altruistic, all knowing but not in the sense we think of knowing - rather knowing how connected we are to not only one another but to all that exists. There is a new sense of responsibility that is based on this realizarion of connection. It can change purpose and meaning to levels so sudden and profound that it baffles science. Noone im aware of has come back to say they had a verbal conversation with anyone or anything. It was all done by thought when communication happened.
reply to post by DISRAELI
If this is the solution to all "Beyond God" questions, then only one other question persists.
How can God physically associate at any level with us, or with anything else that does not share with God any physical commonality?
Your solution has physically eliminated God from our own realm and permanently isolated Him from everything that we are or that we can ever have any physical interaction with.
For any two existent things to ever be capable of any physical interaction - especially an interaction that physically defines one or the other of the two (like one being causally responsible for the others existence, let's say) then both of these existent things must share a level of physical commonality. That's just a basic requirement that can't be wished or debated away. If God doesn't physically exist within a shared reality of any kind with us, then God could not have ever created us.
This isn't philosophy. This is the nature of causation, and whether God has or hasn't any causal connections, the fact is that we do have causal connections, and our entire physical existence is based on those connections. Those connections create and define the physical reality that contains us, and to insist that God is not at all connected to that entire physically interconnected reality is to literally declare that God is not real (since the definition of real means "what it is that is included and therefore integral to what combines to constitute physical reality")
You literally cannot have God unattached to what is physically real while declaring Him to the physical creator of all that is physically real. And if God is physically attached to what is physically real, then by definition, God shares a physical commonality with what is physically real. And if that's true, then it goes without saying that at least one of the "Beyond God" answers you've provided must be insufficient in addressing the question posed.
If God creates something, then his fingerprints (metaphorically, and yet, in a very real and physical sense) must exist on that which God has created. And if this is the case (which it is) then God's fingers are as physical as what God has left fingerprints upon. This is especially true if God is then capable of reaching in and physically affecting the ongoing existence of that which He has created.
Keep in mind that not all physical existence is material in structure (the list of non-material energies is a quick and easy example), and yet these share physical properties with us, such as being affected by the passage of time, and by physical causation. So, even if your God is invisible, He's not free from having to share physical commonality with the rest of our physical structure if He's going to claim responsibility for our physical existence. This one requirement isn't negotiable.
If this is the solution to all "Beyond God" questions, then only one other question persists.
How can God physically associate at any level with us, or with anything else that does not share with God any physical commonality?
Your solution has physically eliminated God from our own realm and permanently isolated Him from everything that we are or that we can ever have any physical interaction with.
For any two existent things to ever be capable of any physical interaction - especially an interaction that physically defines one or the other of the two (like one being causally responsible for the others existence, let's say) then both of these existent things must share a level of physical commonality. That's just a basic requirement that can't be wished or debated away. If God doesn't physically exist within a shared reality of any kind with us, then God could not have ever created us.
This isn't philosophy. This is the nature of causation, and whether God has or hasn't any causal connections, the fact is that we do have causal connections, and our entire physical existence is based on those connections. Those connections create and define the physical reality that contains us, and to insist that God is not at all connected to that entire physically interconnected reality is to literally declare that God is not real (since the definition of real means "what it is that is included and therefore integral to what combines to constitute physical reality")
You literally cannot have God unattached to what is physically real while declaring Him to the physical creator of all that is physically real. And if God is physically attached to what is physically real, then by definition, God shares a physical commonality with what is physically real. And if that's true, then it goes without saying that at least one of the "Beyond God" answers you've provided must be insufficient in addressing the question posed.
If God creates something, then his fingerprints (metaphorically, and yet, in a very real and physical sense) must exist on that which God has created. And if this is the case (which it is) then God's fingers are as physical as what God has left fingerprints upon. This is especially true if God is then capable of reaching in and physically affecting the ongoing existence of that which He has created.
Keep in mind that not all physical existence is material in structure (the list of non-material energies is a quick and easy example), and yet these share physical properties with us, such as being affected by the passage of time, and by physical causation. So, even if your God is invisible, He's not free from having to share physical commonality with the rest of our physical structure if He's going to claim responsibility for our physical existence. This one requirement isn't negotiable.
edit on 8/1/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Dianec
I think I'm getting your meaning more clearly now. The ultimate that made everything (the very beginning; the creator of everything that is). it seems you are asking what created God who created the universe.
You're nearly there, except that other people are asking that question, and I'm advising that they should stop at "God created the universe" without trying to take it to any further stages.
God was responsible for the later (taking the initial energy that was chaos and from which he was born and creating something from it)...Maybe creation means "i took this blob of clay and made something out of it". It may not mean making the clay itself. What made the blob from which to work -
But that would not make God the ultimate, because the clay or matter or energy or whatever he was working on would then be independent of him.
That is what the philosophers call Dualism, because it resolves the ultimate structure into two entities, God and matter.
Unless you want to say there is something larger which contains them both, but that doesn't make God the ultimate either.
That leaves us with the concept of Creation, that there is something other than God, but also dependent upon God, something which God brought into existence.
edit on 1-8-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NorEaster
Your solution has physically eliminated God from our own realm and permanently isolated Him from everything that we are or that we can ever have any physical interaction with.
But the point is that physical interaction is not the only kind of interaction.
I am not isolating God, because I am not eliminating every possible interaction.
Just the kind of interaction that we can understand.
This is because we can only understand and describe what happens within our own realm; for anything beyond that realm, we can only apply a label without understanding what it means.
If God doesn't physically exist within a shared reality of any kind with us, then God could not have ever created us.
This argument takes for granted that Creation is a physical interaction.
If Creation is not a physical interaction, then the argument does not work.
If "Creation" is a kind of interaction which is not only different from physical interaction but superior to it, we are not in a position to impose limitations on it.
You literally cannot have God unattached to what is physically real while declaring Him to the physical creator of all that is physically real.
But I am not declaring God to be the physical Creator.
I am declaring Creation to be a non-physical event.
He's not free from having to share physical commonality with the rest of our physical structure if He's going to claim responsibility for our physical existence. This one requirement isn't negotiable.
Yes he is, if Creation is something that happens in a non-physical way.
I should point out that the detachment of God from space and time relations is not my own invention.
It's fairly commonplace in Christian philosophy, and can probably be traced back to Augustine and further.
The only novelty I'm offering is proposing to take the same approach to "causation", by analogy.
edit on 1-8-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
reply to post by DISRAELI
lol; if you're not careful you'll anylize yourself out of existence!
'That leaves us with the concept of Creation, that there is something other than God, but also dependent upon God, something which God brought into existence."-
something other than god which god brought into existence----?? que??
how can that possibly be? if the god you're talking about is the ultimate original he's by definition omnipresent, almighty, omni everything. nothing was made that was not made by him or words to that effect. any other ideas are dualistic and false/impossible. at least according to the highest faculty of the mind, that being the discriminatory faculty.
it is the finite mind which sees a creation and imagines itself separate from god. your language reveals the problem easily. and i quote; [i]"that leaves us with the concept of creation" a mental concept--get it? reminds me of the title of one of shakespears works--"much ado about nothing" lol.
its almost, but not quite, impossible to know it, but separation is an illusion.
(dammit, cant work these italics properly)
lol; if you're not careful you'll anylize yourself out of existence!
'That leaves us with the concept of Creation, that there is something other than God, but also dependent upon God, something which God brought into existence."-
something other than god which god brought into existence----?? que??
how can that possibly be? if the god you're talking about is the ultimate original he's by definition omnipresent, almighty, omni everything. nothing was made that was not made by him or words to that effect. any other ideas are dualistic and false/impossible. at least according to the highest faculty of the mind, that being the discriminatory faculty.
it is the finite mind which sees a creation and imagines itself separate from god. your language reveals the problem easily. and i quote; [i]"that leaves us with the concept of creation" a mental concept--get it? reminds me of the title of one of shakespears works--"much ado about nothing" lol.
its almost, but not quite, impossible to know it, but separation is an illusion.
(dammit, cant work these italics properly)
Originally posted by orangutang
something other than god which god brought into existence----?? que??
This was a roundabout way of talking about the world.
The world which God created is "something other than God which God brought into existence".
nothing was made that was not made by him or words to that effect. any other ideas are dualistic and false/impossible
Exactly so.
The very fact that "all things were made by him" means that God and "all things" are distinct.
If A makes B, the grammar of that sentence means there is a distinction between A and B.
This is not dualism, because genuine dualism has two elements which are independent of each other.
On several occasions, I have suggested that Creation doctrine should be labelled "one-and-a-half-ism", because it occupies a position halfway between Monism (no distinction, no independence) and Dualism (both distinction and independence)
edit on 1-8-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by will615
In fact God has been taken out of space.
Unfortunately, it seems God is being taken out of everything.
Even the Gnostic Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels of Thomas and Judas looks at "God" and sees an entity/thing/non-thing that is ultimately beyond human comprehension, and therefore irrelevant on a practical level. He laughed at his disciples when they did their rituals and prayer, telling them that it was foolish to think that such an unimaginable superbeing could be at all interested in or influenced by such human mutterings.
His focus then turned to humanity, which he perceived as temporarily stuck in a horrifying and cruel existence. And the only partial remedy he could come up with was that people should be nice to each other, since we could slightly ease the pain and fear, and make things slightly less horrible.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Originally posted by orangutang
something other than god which god brought into existence----?? que??
This was a roundabout way of talking about the world.
The world which God created is "something other than God which God brought into existence".
There is only God and God imagines the world.
God is this moment of presence and there is absolutely nothing outside of presence. God then imagines that there is 'past' and 'future' - he imagines 'other'.
He then worships 'other' and suffers greatly.
Only when he realizes that all is imagined in what he is (presence) will he have returned to source. Only when he realizes that anything 'other' is just a 'word' arising presently.
There is no 'other'.
In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word is God.
Jesus overcame the 'world' when he realized it was just a bunch of ideas arising within him.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
nothing was made that was not made by him or words to that effect. any other ideas are dualistic and false/impossible
Exactly so.
The very fact that "all things were made by him" means that God and "all things" are distinct.
If A makes B, the grammar of that sentence means there is a distinction between A and B.
This is not dualism, because genuine dualism has two elements which are independent of each other.
On several occasions, I have suggested that Creation doctrine should be labelled "one-and-a-half-ism", because it occupies a position halfway between Monism (no distinction, no independence) and Dualism (both distinction and independence)
What is here right now is God. What is here right now? The image that is appearing - the happening of this present moment is seen, is known to be happening. As soon as there is a 'knower' and an apparent happening being 'known' twoness (duality) is. Oneness is realized when those two are seen to be inseparable.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Itisnowagain
What you have written is a bare unsupported statement, as I have said.
It comes from nowhere except from your own preferences.
Everything comes from nowhere. Now here is all there is and in it arises everything. Every 'thing' is a concept - and every concept arises within the non conceptual.
The Father is the non conceptual and the son is the concept. The Father and son are one. The Father is what sees and hears the concept.
Man is what gets lost among the concepts. Only when man realizes that he is not a concept but is the seer of concepts will he be lifted away - but no one wants to be annihilated do they? One must die to know life.
edit on 2-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
i quite like some of the vedic interpretations of the material world being a kind of relativistic illusion born of our limited ability to perceive as
fragments of the one true Godhead consciousness..
reality as a manifestation of an omnipresent and omniscient intelligence/consciousness makes sense, but to accept it is to accept that every person you come into contact with, every animal, every tree, every blade of grass, is a different little piece of God saying hi, and so are you.. That creeps a lot of people out.
Spoken by Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 13, Verse 26:
Wherever a being is born, whether unmoving or moving, know that Arjuna, as born from the union between the field and the knower of the field.
Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 13, Verse 29:
Only he who sees that all activities are performed by the body (field), which is created of material nature, and sees that the Self (Knower of the field) does nothing, sees aright.
Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 18, Verse 61:
Arjuna, God abides in the heart of all creatures, causing them to revolve according to their Karma (Desires) by His illusive power (Māyā) as though mounted on a machine.
Sri Bagawan Krishna says, Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 7, Verse 25:
I, Knower of the field, am never manifest to the foolish and ignorant. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-Maya]; and that is why the deluded world knows Me not, Who am unborn and infallible.
Sri Bagawan Krishna says after showing His four-armed form to Arjuna, Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 11, Verse 54:
My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you (not only see Me but also) enter into the mysteries of My being.
reality as a manifestation of an omnipresent and omniscient intelligence/consciousness makes sense, but to accept it is to accept that every person you come into contact with, every animal, every tree, every blade of grass, is a different little piece of God saying hi, and so are you.. That creeps a lot of people out.
edit on 2-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)
reply to post by tachyonmind
I very much enjoyed your post and thought I would share this short video with you.
I very much enjoyed your post and thought I would share this short video with you.
reply to post by Itisnowagain
thankyou, i enjoyed that short video, a little too abstract for my taste but interesting nonetheless..
here's a song i'm reminded of =)
thankyou, i enjoyed that short video, a little too abstract for my taste but interesting nonetheless..
here's a song i'm reminded of =)
edit on 2-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)
reply to post by tachyonmind
Thank you I enjoyed listening to the song.
The lyrics brought this reading to mind so I will share.
The book this is taken from is a very good read by the way - 'When Fear Falls Away' by Jan Frazier.
Thank you I enjoyed listening to the song.
The lyrics brought this reading to mind so I will share.
The book this is taken from is a very good read by the way - 'When Fear Falls Away' by Jan Frazier.
edit on 2-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
reply to post by DISRAELI
Yes, "distinct" but not necessarily "separate". If God is omnipresent then he is everywhere and everything including what is created.
Ice would be like spirits or bodies (the individuals)
and God would be like water.
The ice is within the water, it seems separate and yet it is exactly the same thing.
If God is omnipresent then God is physical and non-physical. God solidifies parts of himself to become "physical" to make it seem like something was "Created".
The water solidifies itself to create crystals of ice within...
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Exactly so.
The very fact that "all things were made by him" means that God and "all things" are distinct.
If A makes B, the grammar of that sentence means there is a distinction between A and B.
Yes, "distinct" but not necessarily "separate". If God is omnipresent then he is everywhere and everything including what is created.
Ice would be like spirits or bodies (the individuals)
and God would be like water.
The ice is within the water, it seems separate and yet it is exactly the same thing.
If God is omnipresent then God is physical and non-physical. God solidifies parts of himself to become "physical" to make it seem like something was "Created".
The water solidifies itself to create crystals of ice within...
Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by DISRAELI
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Exactly so.
The very fact that "all things were made by him" means that God and "all things" are distinct.
If A makes B, the grammar of that sentence means there is a distinction between A and B.
Yes, "distinct" but not necessarily "separate". If God is omnipresent then he is everywhere and everything including what is created.
Ice would be like spirits or bodies (the individuals)
and God would be like water.
The ice is within the water, it seems separate and yet it is exactly the same thing.
If God is omnipresent then God is physical and non-physical. God solidifies parts of himself to become "physical" to make it seem like something was "Created".
The water solidifies itself to create crystals of ice within...
I think that is a very good analogy .
It is like God is the ocean and the 'individual' things are the waves - the waves have no control over their actions because the ocean is the waving.
new topics
-
Who guards the guards
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago -
Has Tesla manipulated data logs to cover up auto pilot crash?
Automotive Discussion: 3 hours ago -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago -
1980s Arcade
General Chit Chat: 10 hours ago -
Deadpool and Wolverine
Movies: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Lawsuit Seeks to ‘Ban the Jab’ in Florida
Diseases and Pandemics: 15 hours ago, 20 flags -
Starburst galaxy M82 - Webb Vs Hubble
Space Exploration: 17 hours ago, 13 flags -
CIA botched its handling of sexual assault allegations, House intel report says
Breaking Alternative News: 13 hours ago, 8 flags -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 7 flags -
Deadpool and Wolverine
Movies: 11 hours ago, 4 flags -
1980s Arcade
General Chit Chat: 10 hours ago, 4 flags -
Teenager makes chess history becoming the youngest challenger for the world championship crown
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 3 flags -
Who guards the guards
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago, 1 flags -
Has Tesla manipulated data logs to cover up auto pilot crash?
Automotive Discussion: 3 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 624 • : Vermilion -
23,000 Dead People Registered Within a Two Week Period In One State
US Political Madness • 41 • : Xtrozero -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 202 • : network dude -
They Killed Dr. Who for Good
Rant • 64 • : Lazy88 -
Deadpool and Wolverine
Movies • 2 • : chiefsmom -
Has Tesla manipulated data logs to cover up auto pilot crash?
Automotive Discussion • 2 • : seekshelter -
Scientists Say Even Insects May Be Sentient
Science & Technology • 55 • : AdultMaleHumanUK -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 610 • : Justoneman -
Lawsuit Seeks to ‘Ban the Jab’ in Florida
Diseases and Pandemics • 24 • : VariedcodeSole -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs • 7 • : pianopraze