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

reply to post by JayinAR


But what makes that godly? What is it to be "godly", and how do those qualities qualify? What makes them godly in contrast to other natural laws and functions?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


In my view, to perceive is godly. To experience anything. Without that one thing, nothing else matters. Seems to be self evident. If you cannot seek god externally, you can find him within yourself.

But looking at the world, it is evident to me that natural laws are tied to everything. Again this is self evident and is another glimpse at the divine. Just as your example above illustrates. Its what keeps this clock tickin'.

ETA: I don't think we can distinguish between things that are Godly and aren't. It seems to me that God is in everything. Absolutely everything. And everything IS God. In the literal sense. The good, the bad,the ugly and the insignificant.

This reconciles why we don't find "evidence" of him. Because we are him. And so is everything else. He doesn't exist OUTSIDE the universe. He IS the universe and he is intelligent.

reply to post by JayinAR


Then my earlier suspicion seems to be more on point, a suspicion I developed a while ago but was stimulated by the contents of another recent thread.

I am inclined to suggest that the "God" being referred to is not an actual entity...so much as a quality or characteristic held to be the paragon of constructive attributes. In other words, "God" is an abstract value applied to a quality deemed to be worthy of honorable mention and regard in the highest and most lauded of senses.

Itisnowagain
jimmyx

Itisnowagain
Those that know the word God will one day realize God and then it will be obvious that God is not just a word not just a concept.God is that which is not a concept - God is that which all concepts arise and subside in.

God is only a term or identifier given to it by humans. There is no 'word' of god other than that scribed and attributed to it by again; humans trying to define it. Are you actually talking about casual/accidental growth and lessoning of entropy, that 'concept' allows for POTENCIAL formulations or systems of itself to compartmentalize and grow in subsets of higher consciousness that can promote greater awareness of itself. Thats the point, to grow self awareness. Its a system that is built upon progression; to lesson entropy, the better it works (which is the point) the more potencial exists for other patterns (subset paradigms) to emerge.

vethumanbeing
Thats the point, to grow self awareness.

The point is to see there is nothing outside of awareness.
All arises within awareness.

Awareness does not need to grow - it just has not recognized itself and thinks/believes there is something other.

Itisnowagain

vethumanbeing
Thats the point, to grow self awareness.

The point is to see there is nothing outside of awareness.
All arises within awareness.

Awareness does not need to grow - it just has not recognized itself and thinks/believes there is something other.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I agree. And I think the question "does he exist?" will finally be put to bed when we discover awareness existing after death. Or maybe even when we discover awareness floating in thin air.

JayinAR

Itisnowagain

vethumanbeing
Thats the point, to grow self awareness.

The point is to see there is nothing outside of awareness.
All arises within awareness.

Awareness does not need to grow - it just has not recognized itself and thinks/believes there is something other.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I agree. And I think the question "does he exist?" will finally be put to bed when we discover awareness existing after death. Or maybe even when we discover awareness floating in thin air.

It is the mind which doubts the existence of that which it appears in.

Itisnowagain

vethumanbeing
Thats the point, to grow self awareness.

Itisnowagain
The point is to see there is nothing outside of awareness.
All arises within awareness. Awareness does not need to grow -
it just has not recognized itself and thinks/believes there is
something other.

In so saying, what some dim awareness existed in the first place; just
thought of a (barely aware) of itself entity; like an omeboa. Are you saying that dimness will never progress; and if so evolution of the species never occured due to conscious building of awareness to grow itself into a successful specie?

Of course it must grow or the system lies stagnent; the Absolute Unbounded Oneness has to grow itself into awareness. It must recognise this or are you saying awareness grows the system without being aware? It has consciousness however dim it may be will not allow itself to stagnate. We demonstrate its recognision of itself by merely being/existing and are succeeding without YET killing the experiment.
Awareness by definition is the perspective of 'observing' ones own condition, awareness is not a Being, its an attribute attached to that which is able to decifer its surroundings grow it and not harm itself unduly in the attempts.

vethumanbeing
Of course it must grow or the system lies stagnent; the Absolute Unbounded Oneness has to grow itself into awareness.

Awareness is aware of what is being conceived - that which it conceives is not separate to awareness or made of anything other than awareness.
It is never not here - the absolute unbounded one is awareness - it is the one - nothing has to grow into it, because there is nothing apart from it.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What I really wanted was the OP to give his/her view on Spinozas God to hear how he/she has interpreted it.

I have already done the research.

I'm just wondering if you've read The Ethics by Spinoza, where he explains his philosophy in detail?

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

What I really wanted was the OP to give his/her view on Spinozas God to hear how he/she has interpreted it.

I have already done the research.

I'm just wondering if you've read The Ethics by Spinoza, where he explains his philosophy in detail?

I answered that question.

It is not 'the' Ethics by the way.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


So you have read it?

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

So you have read it?

Not as yet but I have looked briefly online.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

So you have read it?

However - I did not want his philosophy - I would like to hear your interpretation of his interpretation of God.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


It's boring beyond all belief. It's structured in a way that makes it almost impossible to read. Don't feel you need to read it unless you want to peer into a great mind.

Itisnowagain

vethumanbeing
Of course it must grow or the system lies stagnent; the Absolute Unbounded Oneness has to grow itself into awareness.

Awareness is aware of what is being conceived - that which it conceives is not separate to awareness or made of anything other than awareness.
It is never not here - the absolute unbounded one is awareness - it is the one - nothing has to grow into it, because there is nothing apart from it.

Then why wont the Absolute Unbounded Oneness let us know its not only aware of us but that it does EXIST and stop all the digression of religious dogmas answer the questions its humans poise and put all matters egotistical to rest; as we are not apart from it; joined at the hip actually. We should be plugged in telepathically how so not? to AUO, a major disconnect has happened with the human.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I'd need to re-read it. I suggest you do the same if you wish to come to your own interpretation. The God stuff was extremely tedious. What was interesting was what he said about the human being.

reply to post by Aphorism


a good point even if it was presented in a long hand format, nevertheless, I can see your point, and who was it that wrote the god word in the books, oh yes that was a human, be it man or woman doesnt matter, same species, just as we find the words mickey mouse in book form and artistic impressions created by the human. who wrote all the books of man. men wrote them, and i dont know of one edition that has the authors name as GOD on the cover, the whole thing of religion is a conspirecy and as long as you have respect for all lifeforms we share this ball with, that we can all co exist and be the life forms we are, no matter what we believe or not believe there is no getting away from the fact we are one of many types of life form on a planet spinning around amongst other planets, how long for, time will answer that quesiton. as for some sort of higher life form waiting to grill us about the way we behaved on earth, thats pushing it a bit too far, what we are determins how we behave, and according to some it was god who made us all. then he sure as hell didnt do a very good job.... because if that is true then we behave in the manner he designed us... pretty poor imho.. but anyway onward and upward... as every week that passes is 7 whole days less to wonder what or who we are, before we actually find out... or do we?

vethumanbeing

Itisnowagain

vethumanbeing
Of course it must grow or the system lies stagnent; the Absolute Unbounded Oneness has to grow itself into awareness.

Awareness is aware of what is being conceived - that which it conceives is not separate to awareness or made of anything other than awareness.
It is never not here - the absolute unbounded one is awareness - it is the one - nothing has to grow into it, because there is nothing apart from it.

Then why wont the Absolute Unbounded Oneness let us know its not only aware of us but that it does EXIST and stop all the digression of religious dogmas answer the questions its humans poise and put all matters egotistical to rest; as we are not apart from it; joined at the hip actually. We should be plugged in telepathically how so not?

All questions arise in the one.
Have a look and see where the question arises. Out of nothing appears a question. What is seeking the answer?
Seek that which is seeking and the seeker will dissolve and all that will be left is the answer.

reply to post by Aphorism


Earlier on in the thread you said Spinozas account of God was best. How so?