Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to say that the universe is a "body part" of god and is "alive"
is to say that your own body parts (arm, leg, tooth) are "alive" and are "reproductions" of you
is your arm alive? is your tooth a reproduction of you? did you give birth to your tooth?
even if an "alive" person DOES reproduce and "give birth" (has kids lets say) and those kids are "alive," they are not your body parts! and they are not reproductions of you. and they have not "always been a part of you." when you were nine years old riding a bicycle, you were not carrying around your 30-year-old daughter as one of your "body parts" that has "always been inside you"
these are simple observations based entirely on what you have presented in your own posts about your own belief system.
it's not rocket science.
it's not any type of science. the elements presented just do not fit together in the system that has been described.
None of your analogies work. The universe is not something God created. It is part of God's LIVING existence. We are the ones whose PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES create what we call the universe and everything in it in our minds because that is what we see of God from within God.
Regarding bold above,
what do you mean when you say "the universe and everything in it" is "created in our minds" by our own "perceptions and experiences."
i would like to hear what is meant in your belief system when you say that. That is put forth in many paths of religion and spirituality but perhaps it means something very different to you when you say it. so that's why i am asking. it has the ring of our perceptions create the universe, but you may mean something different, either way it is intriguing to discuss further. by anyone who is interested in this. that we "think" the universe into existence is core. but i want to hear more on whether that is what you are saying.
a generic summary of "the universe and everything in it" is along the lines of: "The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." Since it could mean something quite different to you it is probably helpful to ask also what does it mean to you in your own belief system.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-05-2023 at 09:55 AM..
It's like, make it 100,000 posts and 50 blog posts of this kind of meaningless circular nonsense, and then we'll talk. Only 62k and 24 blogs is just not enough to convince.
Your humor and a few good chuckles had from reading your comments in this forum has me unexpectedly checking back on this thread. Thanks for those!
Seriously though, I've had the same thought about so many posts of one sort or another when really it would be much preferred if there where a good quick synopsis we might be able to consider. Something like my Ten Truths for example. At least to get a glimmer of the underpinning rather than have to wade through hundreds of thousands of posts to get an idea.
"God is reality and reality is God" is one helluva a summation, but boy if that's it, you don't need some thousands of posts to explain that sort of logic or reason. All you really need is a circle.
Also, to Mystic, you really should read some history about the great minds, "magicians," as the author of the book I recommend describes them. People who were not satisfied with just their own self-convincing. They checked and double-checked their proofs with others to confirm not only for themselves but for others that their facts were indeed facts and not mistakes. To confirm their truths were in fact universal truths and not mere say so. Have you done anything like that?
Since you suggest there is scientific justification behind all those posts, it isn't laymen you should be sharing them with or even Tzap to "test your metal." It's scientists who can validate your proofs or point out where your claims, reason or logic is flawed. Not that some of us laymen haven't tried, but I think you need to hear it from someone who you/we can respect as better able to judge along these lines.
Until then, your personal beliefs may be all fine, dandy and full of agape love far as you are concerned, but some of the rest of us are more inclined to stick to the truths that can and have been validated by people most qualified to do so. In some of those cases, the validation was PROMOTED by the earliest great minds that helped us distill what is the truth of these matters from what in many cases was otherwise commonly promoted hogwash.
Your humor and a few good chuckles had from reading your comments in this forum has me unexpectedly checking back on this thread. Thanks for those!Seriously though, I've had the same thought about so many posts of one sort or another when really it would be much preferred if there where a good quick synopsis we might be able to consider. Something like my Ten Truths for example. At least to get a glimmer of the underpinning rather than have to wade through hundreds of thousands of posts to get an idea. "God is reality and reality is God" is one helluva a summation, but boy if that's it, you don't need some thousands of posts to explain that sort of logic or reason. All you really need is a circle. Also, to Mystic, you really should read some history about the great minds, "magicians," as the author of the book I recommend describes them. People who were not satisfied with just their own self-convincing. They checked and double-checked their proofs with others to confirm not only for themselves but for others that their facts were indeed facts and not mistakes. To confirm their truths were in fact universal truths and not mere say so. Have you done anything like that? Since you suggest there is scientific justification behind all those posts, it isn't laymen you should be sharing them with or even Tzap to "test your metal." It's scientists who can validate your proofs or point out where your claims, reason or logic is flawed. Not that some of us laymen haven't tried, but I think you need to hear it from someone who you/we can respect as better able to judge along these lines. Until then, your personal beliefs may be all fine, dandy and full of agape love far as you are concerned, but some of the rest of us are more inclined to stick to the truths that can and have been validated by people most qualified to do so. In some of those cases, the validation was PROMOTED by the earliest great minds that helped us distill what is the truth of these matters from what in many cases was otherwise commonly promoted hogwash.
regarding "validation by those qualified to do so"
it is accurate to say that those who deny the existence of divinity,
have nothing substantive to contribute to validations of divinity. they lack the qualifications.
it is accurate to say that those who deny the existence of god,
have nothing substantive to contribute to discussions about god.
Now replace 'god' with 'yetis', ufos', and 'megalodon' to see the flaw in your argument.
What do biologists have to contribute to discussions about Yetis and megalodon?
What to space engineers have to contribute to discussions about ufos?
It is accurate to say that those who accept the existence of gods (plural) have nothing substantive to contribute to discussions about god. You (plural) can not even decide on what your individual gods are. Is it the universe, did it create the universe, are they aspects of a monist reality.
you are saying the universe has always been a part of God. that is the same as saying god has always contained within it the universe. There has never been god without also having the universe, for you in your beliefs, you have stated repeatedly can't have one without the other. since they are joined at the hip and never without each other then they ARE reliant on each other.
there are no facts regarding God.
there are beliefs about God.
What we perceive as the universe and everything in it is an integral part of God but God is only reliant on it for its specific spiritual function, NOT God's EXISTENCE. You are reliant on your womb for its particular physical function but NOT for your existence. That is not a trivial distinction. The problem is we have no referent for the spiritual realm that is God so these analogies are crude at best (seeing in a mirror darkly). It is difficult to see our physical existence from the perspective of a single "aware cell" within our own bodies. It has no referent for anything outside our body.
regarding "validation by those qualified to do so"
it is accurate to say that those who deny the existence of divinity,
have nothing substantive to contribute to validations of divinity. they lack the qualifications.
I am sure you realize as I certainly do that what you recognize as justification, facts, reason, logic or validation to believe in something is simply not what I require along those lines. Though neither of us is expert along these lines in any case, your qualifications are not the same as mine. Very different. Where does this leave us?
I think I'll leave you back with Mystic and highly recommend you never mind me, or we're bound to waste still more time and effort that is no more productive...
Yet when we ask you to provide this alleged evidence, you evade.
I went through your blogs last week. Your attempt failed. Next time you waste my time, I will charge 200 € pro hour.
I am sorry my efforts were inadequate, but I am delighted you read them. As a professional scientist, I can confirm that there are NONE among my peers who would make any such effort concerning how our Reality could be God. My hypotheses would fall on deaf ears. I would NEVER have made such an effort absent my encounter with the Reality of it. I am not suggesting it is their fault because the God concept itself is rife with irreconcilable products of human imagination, fears, and wishful thinking that make any such effort extremely difficult.
Your humor and a few good chuckles had from reading your comments in this forum has me unexpectedly checking back on this thread. Thanks for those!
Seriously though, I've had the same thought about so many posts of one sort or another when really it would be much preferred if there where a good quick synopsis we might be able to consider. Something like my Ten Truths for example. At least to get a glimmer of the underpinning rather than have to wade through hundreds of thousands of posts to get an idea.
"God is reality and reality is God" is one helluva a summation, but boy if that's it, you don't need some thousands of posts to explain that sort of logic or reason. All you really need is a circle.
Also, to Mystic, you really should read some history about the great minds, "magicians," as the author of the book I recommend describes them. People who were not satisfied with just their own self-convincing. They checked and double-checked their proofs with others to confirm not only for themselves but for others that their facts were indeed facts and not mistakes. To confirm their truths were in fact universal truths and not mere say so. Have you done anything like that?
Since you suggest there is scientific justification behind all those posts, it isn't laymen you should be sharing them with or even Tzap to "test your metal." It's scientists who can validate your proofs or point out where your claims, reason or logic is flawed. Not that some of us laymen haven't tried, but I think you need to hear it from someone who you/we can respect as better able to judge along these lines.
Until then, your personal beliefs may be all fine, dandy and full of agape love far as you are concerned, but some of the rest of us are more inclined to stick to the truths that can and have been validated by people most qualified to do so. In some of those cases, the validation was PROMOTED by the earliest great minds that helped us distill what is the truth of these matters from what in many cases was otherwise commonly promoted hogwash.
I forgive your assumption that my reading has been inadequate. I hear and agree that this venue is not the place to "test" my views. I was asked by a friend to provide some explanation geared toward a general audience and I did. Everything has proceeded from that. As I said to Harry, there are NONE among my peers who would seriously entertain any hypotheses about how God could be Reality or existence itself. If I am honest with myself, even though I have retired since 2001, I would not want my professional reputation "soiled" with what would inevitably ensue from any such attempt.
Did I forget to mention that I am no Jesus and was far from it when I encountered God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
