+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: What is G_d or the higher consciousness...?

  1. #1
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default What is G_d or the higher consciousness...?

    Thus is for me to try to get what must be 'true' about G_d if such an entity exists.

    Scope:
    1) G_d must be infinite - that is the only way I can see to get around the 'who created G_d' paradox. It doesn't stop the question, but it means there can be no answer. There is nothing outside of G_d.
    2) There can be nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d.
    3) Anything created by G_d must be of G_d - as there is nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d (so this tends toward the Kybalion mental state of existence).

    The implication there is that if G_d exists G_d is us - we are a fundamental part of G_d. But we are not special in any way - as everything is part of G_d.

    Effect:
    This is where I fall apart. The scope was simple. It seems, from human experience that G-d is not good/bad, hot/cold, red/blue. G_d is and must be everything. There are no limits to what we perceive - man just creates the limits - there are no limits as G_d is infinite, so everything within G_d is infinite. Infinite ranges of hot/cold, good/bad, love/hate. G_d just is - I am that I am.

    Cause:
    G-d has no cause as there is nothing outside of G_d to provide a cause.
    This also 'causes' me an issue - as my thoughts have cause - ie I am writing this because it is the effect of the discussion. I can't preclude my thoughts from cause/effect.
    But if we exist in G_d - what is cause for G_d mentally (or physically) creating us from his substance? There appears here to be a problem, but is it a problem caused by human perception? Can you have effect without cause? Human experience would say not.

    From what I see above, I don't 'need' G_d - I may want G_d - but I want that G_d to be 'good' and to treat me as special - but I can't see that that follows in the slightest. But that is just me.

    I need to think on this - as is G_d unprovable simply because G_d is infinite - do you need to be outside of something to be able to prove it exists? And if we are then part of G_d the task is then totally impossible? Even G-d can't define G_d - I am that I am is all but the best definition you can have. The only information we can have about G_d comes from G_d. We experience nothing that is not G_d. G_d experiences nothing that is not G_d. G_d is self reflection.

    I'm not certain then that I need a G_d construct - a big bang effectively gives me the same - apart from it doesn't avoid the '..what created the big bang...'.

    Brain ache..

  2. #2
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default Perception of G_d

    Perception:
    How do we perceive G_d?
    We can't perceive G_d, being part of G_d and created by G_d of G_D substance, we can only perceive what G_d wants us to perceive. We are completely bounded by the reality that G_d has or will create. We can no more see outside of that reality than know everything. We can only ever know what we are allowed to know. So how can we ever tell if G_d has lifted the veil and is allowing us to perceive him - and if G_d can't define G_d what image or experience of G_d can we have anyway?

    This also echoes the dream sentiment (dream of Tiresias?). In our dreams we create entities - or do we? What are we allowed even in dream? The dream is still within G_d, so subject to the same rules. I may think that the characters in my dream are in my control - or at least created by me - but like me and reality, my dreams are still created by G_d so bound by whatever rules he has applied. Is that how it works? Is that why dreams seem so obscure?


    Law and infinity:
    I had a belief in my god because of law. I saw law as proof of my god. So to me my belief was confirmed, until I realised what infinity meant. If there could be infinite universes, then one of them would/must be bound by law as ours appears to be. So no need for G_d.

    Now, if G_d is infinite, then is it possible for G_d to have created an infinite number of universes within himself from his substance? Does anything that is infinite imply that it can contain 'infinite' things? It would appear that it potentially does (I can't really get my head round that - any number beyond 100,000 that I can visualise in a football stadium, loses me!), so by defining G_d as infinite, do I then create another paradox? I define G_d as infinite to get around the 'who created G_d' issue, but by making G_d infinite, I no longer need G_d.

    Maybe this thread wasn't a good idea, as I don't think I'm capable of comprehending this at all....!

  3. #3
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Its not easy nor simply done (maybe the final explanation is too simple, I don't know) I think, without first establishing a definitive subjective position and then establishing a definitive endpoint that we create stable bridge between (which is the whole problem to begin with). I was trying to attempt it from really off earlier, possibly too far off, and it didn't get far.

    I'm going to try to weight in later when I have more time.

  4. #4
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    Thus is for me to try to get what must be 'true' about G_d if such an entity exists.

    Scope:
    1) G_d must be infinite - that is the only way I can see to get around the 'who created G_d' paradox. It doesn't stop the question, but it means there can be no answer. There is nothing outside of G_d.
    2) There can be nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d.
    3) Anything created by G_d must be of G_d - as there is nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d (so this tends toward the Kybalion mental state of existence).
    The point of singularity, an original and final emanation, one whom nothing had created, yet from whom all things would transpire. G_d is within all, all is within G_d. All stems from G_d, thus all returns to G_d.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    The implication there is that if G_d exists G_d is us - we are a fundamental part of G_d. But we are not special in any way - as everything is part of G_d.
    Certainly. Any hierarchy in this scenario would be false, since all are from the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    Effect:
    This is where I fall apart. The scope was simple. It seems, from human experience that G-d is not good/bad, hot/cold, red/blue. G_d is and must be everything. There are no limits to what we perceive - man just creates the limits - there are no limits as G_d is infinite, so everything within G_d is infinite. Infinite ranges of hot/cold, good/bad, love/hate. G_d just is - I am that I am.
    Duality is thus by necessity a product of either the human mind, or of being conditioned to an experience of physical existence to begin with. Because of our subjective disposition within the frame of mortality, everything is determined as a pair of opposites, as the ultimate reality within this context is life/death. As we create further values by interpreting the original impulse within the format of positive and negative qualities, (or of the things and then the thing's opposite), any attempt of moving to either one definition to its opposite must fall within the realm of subjectivity, since it was essentially not the thing in its original form. This is the idea I was trying to get at with the description of a "limitless objectivity", an unaffected position to rectify concern within a perspective of dichotomy or duality.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    Cause:
    G-d has no cause as there is nothing outside of G_d to provide a cause.
    This also 'causes' me an issue - as my thoughts have cause - ie I am writing this because it is the effect of the discussion. I can't preclude my thoughts from cause/effect.
    But if we exist in G_d - what is cause for G_d mentally (or physically) creating us from his substance? There appears here to be a problem, but is it a problem caused by human perception? Can you have effect without cause? Human experience would say not.
    Thus there would be no end to the limit of what extends from G_d as a first cause, but this doesn't necessarily state that the relationship is direct? You stated earlier the idea that G_d can not be known. If we "break up" the levels that might exist between us and G_d several first causes become secondary causes, etc., that cause varying effects as his emanation proceeds "downward". Somewhere in that chain, might there be possibility to "know" G_d at only such a level, from the human perspective? Its not saying that we can "know" G_d with absolute direction, but we can certainly know G_d through his effects. Kind of like detecting Dark Matter. We can't see Dark Matter but we know for it exist because of its effect on everything surrounding it. We know G_d and experience G_d in this sense, because if everything stems from G_d, he is thus everywhere.

    But ultimately it would seem there is no reason to provide an explanation that would suit any purpose outside of our own sense of understanding, so there must be a limit to what we can address or describe in this capacity. Ancient cosmologies often stated that the state of G_d became un-individuated, or divided, the moment G_d decided to reflect upon himself, and thus "0" become "1" or some other idea along those lines. So, in other words, there should be no other necessity for a cause outside of G_d himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    From what I see above, I don't 'need' G_d - I may want G_d - but I want that G_d to be 'good' and to treat me as special - but I can't see that that follows in the slightest. But that is just me.

    I need to think on this - as is G_d unprovable simply because G_d is infinite - do you need to be outside of something to be able to prove it exists? And if we are then part of G_d the task is then totally impossible? Even G-d can't define G_d - I am that I am is all but the best definition you can have. The only information we can have about G_d comes from G_d. We experience nothing that is not G_d. G_d experiences nothing that is not G_d. G_d is self reflection.

    I'm not certain then that I need a G_d construct - a big bang effectively gives me the same - apart from it doesn't avoid the '..what created the big bang...'.

    Brain ache..
    Here is where I am thinking now- I don't think that G_d is knowable in the fullest-direct sense, because clearly if we extend all causes back and beyond all of what we know or experience either first hand or through philosophy or science or reason, we are getting to a point that is beyond definition and beyond description. Unless, of course, we have somehow shed this mortal coil and have become one with the source. However, to consider that from G_d all things extend out from, then the entire universe and everything in it is then a part of how we experience G_d. As others before us have stated, in the physical realm, where we found ourselves to exist, that this is simply the lowest density of G_d's emanation and that for other energies, physical or otherwise, these just represent other densities.

    I think the ultimate question herein is with regard to free will. If we accept that duality also extends from the single source emanation of G_d, then such forces which exist in opposition are also found under the first cause, as described, without a subjective value attached. To allow for such duality suggests that at some level, we do become involved in a manner of dealing with and reconciling such differences, if we are to know G_d more than that capacity. We are left to to chose either one extreme, the other, or to synthesize a balanced reconciliation between them. Perhaps these were the circumstances G_D placed: a mirror-image of the indivisible singularity of the "macrocosm" found in the limited objectivity of the "microcosm", through a model of reconciling duality in the middle. Perhaps below this level everything must be reconciled, to return to G_D to know more of G_D.

  5. #5
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    a limitless objectivity (WITHOUT) reaching a limitless subjectivity (WITHIN), the two extremes meet, since the end is the beginning
    but thus should they also at every interval in between

    G_d is the center which is everywhere, yet whose circumference is nowhere

  6. #6
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    ...

    Scope:
    1) G_d must be infinite - that is the only way I can see to get around the 'who created G_d' paradox. It doesn't stop the question, but it means there can be no answer. There is nothing outside of G_d.
    2) There can be nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d.
    3) Anything created by G_d must be of G_d - as there is nothing outside of G_d that is not created by G_d (so this tends toward the Kybalion mental state of existence).
    Quote Originally Posted by H
    The point of singularity, an original and final emanation, one whom nothing had created, yet from whom all things would transpire. G_d is within all, all is within G_d. All stems from G_d, thus all returns to G_d.
    No I don't think so. In my definition – which presumably you're replying to - you can't return to something that you are already. That you are actually part of.
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    The implication there is that if G_d exists G_d is us - we are a fundamental part of G_d. But we are not special in any way - as everything is part of G_d.
    Quote Originally Posted by H
    Certainly. Any hierarchy in this scenario would be false, since all are from the same.
    But all is still conjecture here. This is just based on MY definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    Effect:
    This is where I fall apart. The scope was simple. It seems, from human experience that G-d is not good/bad, hot/cold, red/blue. G_d is and must be everything. There are no limits to what we perceive - man just creates the limits - there are no limits as G_d is infinite, so everything within G_d is infinite. Infinite ranges of hot/cold, good/bad, love/hate. G_d just is - I am that I am.
    Quote Originally Posted by H
    Duality is thus by necessity a product of either the human mind, or of being conditioned to an experience of physical existence to begin with.
    No – In my definition it follows that duality is the product of G_d. We are G_d – of then same substance. We can only perceive what we are meant to perceive. Therefore we were meant to perceive hot&cold,love&hate...etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by H
    Because of our subjective disposition within the frame of mortality, everything is determined as a pair of opposites, as the ultimate reality within this context is life/death. As we create further values by interpreting the original impulse within the format of positive and negative qualities, (or of the things and then the thing's opposite), any attempt of moving to either one definition to its opposite must fall within the realm of subjectivity, since it was essentially not the thing in its original form. This is the idea I was trying to get at with the description of a "limitless objectivity", an unaffected position to rectify concern within a perspective of dichotomy or duality.
    But in MY definition it is G_d who has furnished this reality. It is G_d who created life and death and all the ranges that make my life real. I can't escape it – as I am in it as part of G_d. If G_d didn't want me to perceive these things, I wouldn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    Cause:
    G-d has no cause as there is nothing outside of G_d to provide a cause.
    This also 'causes' me an issue - as my thoughts have cause - ie I am writing this because it is the effect of the discussion. I can't preclude my thoughts from cause/effect.
    But if we exist in G_d - what is cause for G_d mentally (or physically) creating us from his substance? There appears here to be a problem, but is it a problem caused by human perception? Can you have effect without cause? Human experience would say not.
    Quote Originally Posted by H
    Thus there would be no end to the limit of what extends from G_d as a first cause, but this doesn't necessarily state that the relationship is direct? You stated earlier the idea that G_d can not be known.
    I thought I asked a question. I stated that G_d in my opinion hasn't been defined and hence the problem of proof. I then went onto to ask, if the problem is then being of G_d that it becomes impossible to define something from the inside – and as G-d is infinite (in my def), G-d can't perceive G_d either – there is no other view as G_d is infinite.

    Quote Originally Posted by H
    If we "break up" the levels that might exist between us and G_d several first causes become secondary causes, etc., that cause varying effects as his emanation proceeds "downward". Somewhere in that chain, might there be possibility to "know" G_d at only such a level, from the human perspective? Its not saying that we can "know" G_d with absolute direction, but we can certainly know G_d through his effects. Kind of like detecting Dark Matter. We can't see Dark Matter but we know for it exist because of its effect on everything surrounding it. We know G_d and experience G_d in this sense, because if everything stems from G_d, he is thus everywhere
    But where does all that come from? That is just stuff you've read. Can you show from your own thoughts that there have to be any levels at all? I tried to work in my def from the premise of '...if G_d does exist, what must be 'true'…'. IE G-d must be infinite as there can be nothing oustside of G-d that isn't G_d or created by G_d – it then follows, the we must be of G_d .

    Quote Originally Posted by H
    But ultimately it would seem there is no reason to provide an explanation that would suit any purpose outside of our own sense of understanding, so there must be a limit to what we can address or describe in this capacity. Ancient cosmologies often stated that the state of G_d became un-individuated, or divided, the moment G_d decided to reflect upon himself, and thus "0" become "1" or some other idea along those lines. So, in other words, there should be no other necessity for a cause outside of G_d himself.
    But why? I understand that all is cause and effect. I understand that because that is what G_d again appears to want me to perceive. I do not see anything outside of cause and effect. So I still end up with the issue the same as the big bang – what on earth was the cause? I get around other issues, by logically assuming G_d is infinite. There can be nothing to create G_d – as G_d takes up all. But I still fail to see how I get around cause and effect. Maybe Alpha/Omega solves that like infinity solves my other issues – ie cause/effect are a cycle – not an open ended stream. The last cause creates G_d.
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    From what I see above, I don't 'need' G_d - I may want G_d - but I want that G_d to be 'good' and to treat me as special - but I can't see that that follows in the slightest. But that is just me.

    I need to think on this - as is G_d unprovable simply because G_d is infinite - do you need to be outside of something to be able to prove it exists? And if we are then part of G_d the task is then totally impossible? Even G-d can't define G_d - I am that I am is all but the best definition you can have. The only information we can have about G_d comes from G_d. We experience nothing that is not G_d. G_d experiences nothing that is not G_d. G_d is self reflection.

    I'm not certain then that I need a G_d construct - a big bang effectively gives me the same - apart from it doesn't avoid the '..what created the big bang...'.

    Brain ache..
    Quote Originally Posted by hayward
    Here is where I am thinking now- I don't think that G_d is knowable in the fullest-direct sense, because clearly if we extend all causes back and beyond all of what we know or experience either first hand or through philosophy or science or reason, we are getting to a point that is beyond definition and beyond description. Unless, of course, we have somehow shed this mortal coil and have become one with the source.
    But in my def we are one with the source. We can never be anything else.
    Quote Originally Posted by H
    However, to consider that from G_d all things extend out from, then the entire universe and everything in it is then a part of how we experience G_d. As others before us have stated, in the physical realm, where we found ourselves to exist, that this is simply the lowest density of G_d's emanation and that for other energies, physical or otherwise, these just represent other densities.
    But there you go again referring to densities. Who says there are multiple densities – is there any thing you can logically state shows them if you work from the premise '...what must G_d be….'? I don't see any need for levels at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by H
    I think the ultimate question herein is with regard to free will. If we accept that duality also extends from the single source emanation of G_d, then such forces which exist in opposition are also found under the first cause, as described, without a subjective value attached. To allow for such duality suggests that at some level, we do become involved in a manner of dealing with and reconciling such differences, if we are to know G_d more than that capacity. We are left to to chose either one extreme, the other, or to synthesize a balanced reconciliation between them.
    No, not that I see in my def. G_d created what we perceive, the same as we were created. We, and what we experience is part of G_d – of G_d. There is no free will. All is cause and effect. We don't reconcile the differences, we just experience them. We experience heat,colour, life, death, love, hate, good,bad...G-d created us to experience them.
    Quote Originally Posted by H
    Perhaps these were the circumstances G_D placed: a mirror-image of the indivisible singularity of the "macrocosm" found in the limited objectivity of the "microcosm", through a model of reconciling duality in the middle. Perhaps below this level everything must be reconciled, to return to G_D to know more of G_D.
    But I repeat, in my model, you are part of G-d already, so what is there to return to?
    I still don't see a need for G_d. I still want G_d, but I don't see (in my def) that I need G_d for us to exist. An infinite universe would suffice – as the issue with the first cause is the same irrespective of whether you introduce G_d or not.

  7. #7
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default Time

    G_d and time:
    I think that this also then follows.
    If G-d is infinite, there are no events outside of G_d. If Time is the 'gap' between cause/effect, then time does not exist for G_d as there are no causes/effects, and hence events, external to G_d.
    Time is then a construct of G_d and only exists within G_d. G_d can have no sense of time without introspection. G_d is aware of G_d? I am that I am.

    G_d and space:
    G_d doesn't know where he came from or where he's going - there is no 'where', just 'here' - as there is nothing outside of G_d.

    Taking that back to the scientific view of the big bang, does that also then imply that time came into being at the first cause?

    G_d and consciousness:
    On the religious side, is G_d even aware of his creation? How can I go from the steps above, which appear to semi follow, to G_d being aware? I can't see a logical step that takes me there. I see that I am conscious but am I? As within the thread with Astral, what eventually defines conscious? Man is already making machines that make decisions - if consciousness is defined as being aware of your environment, then that criteria is already fulfilled - if it also includes being self aware, then that does not seem that far off.
    If G-d cannot create anything that he can't conceive of, then G_d conceived consciousness - so does that make G_d conscious? Does creation prove consciousness? Can anything create without conceiving first?

  8. #8
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    The point of singularity, an original and final emanation, one whom nothing had created, yet from whom all things would transpire. G_d is within all, all is within G_d. All stems from G_d, thus all returns to G_d."


    "posted by JL- No I don't think so. In my definition – which presumably you're replying to - you can't return to something that you are already. That you are actually part of."


    This definition however assumes that there are no 'degrees' between us and G_d, that everything is finite in this scheme, that there is no relativity at any point. G_d is everywhere, and everything is the result of the first cause. Secondary causes, tertiary causes, all ripple outward as a result stemming back to the first. G_d's presence is thus everywhere. G_d is in the walls surrounding me. but are the walls G_d? Not necessarily.

    "Quote Originally Posted by jl
    The
    implication there is that if G_d exists G_d is us - we are a fundamental part of G_d. But we are not special in any way - as everything is part of G_d.

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    Certainly. Any hierarchy in this scenario would be false, since all are from the same."


    "Quote Originally Posted by jl
    But all is still conjecture here. This is just based on MY definition."


    This assessment of something being conjecture is conjecture in and of itself, so we are to assume it matters to no one except for ourselves.

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    Effect:
    This is where I fall apart. The scope was simple. It seems, from human experience that G-d is not good/bad, hot/cold, red/blue. G_d is and must be everything. There are no limits to what we perceive - man just creates the limits - there are no limits as G_d is infinite, so everything within G_d is infinite. Infinite ranges of hot/cold, good/bad, love/hate. G_d just is - I am that I am."


    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    Duality is thus by necessity a product of either the human mind, or of being conditioned to an experience of physical existence to begin with."


    "posted by jl-
    No – In my definition it follows that duality is the product of G_d. We are G_d – of then same substance. We can only perceive what we are meant to perceive. Therefore we were meant to perceive hot&cold,love&hate...etc."


    Ok- so duality is the creation of G_d, but certainly it is not a limitation on his part, but a result of the degrees of causes extending from the first. G_d in and of himself, must be singular, all other things being a result of his reflection. But these reflections should be understood to break down into other stages like branches of a tree. The first becomes un-individuated and transpires into 1. The first versus the "nothing" substantiates a "2" These two interact and produce a third.....etc., etc.
    So the experience of duality is our concern, since it is a condition we are faced with. It could be a natural product of the evolution of G_d, not necessarily the result of a direct first- cause.

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    Because of our subjective disposition within the frame of mortality, everything is determined as a pair of opposites, as the ultimate reality within this context is life/death. As we create further values by interpreting the original impulse within the format of positive and negative qualities, (or of the things and then the thing's opposite), any attempt of moving to either one definition to its opposite must fall within the realm of subjectivity, since it was essentially not the thing in its original form. This is the idea I was trying to get at with the description of a "limitless objectivity", an unaffected position to rectify concern within a perspective of dichotomy or duality."


    "But in MY definition it is G_d who has furnished this reality. It is G_d who created life and death and all the ranges that make my life real. I can't escape it – as I am in it as part of G_d. If G_d didn't want me to perceive these things, I wouldn't."


    I think the previous response I gave applies to this also.

    "jlockest:
    Cause:
    G-d has no cause as there is nothing outside of G_d to provide a cause.
    This also 'causes' me an issue - as my thoughts have cause - ie I am writing this because it is the effect of the discussion. I can't preclude my thoughts from cause/effect.
    But if we exist in G_d - what is cause for G_d mentally (or physically) creating us from his substance? There appears here to be a problem, but is it a problem caused by human perception? Can you have effect without cause? Human experience would say not."


    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    Thus there would be no end to the limit of what extends from G_d as a first cause, but this doesn't necessarily state that the relationship is direct? You stated earlier the idea that G_d can not be known."


    "jlockest: I thought I asked a question. I stated that G_d in my opinion hasn't been defined and hence the problem of proof. I then went onto to ask, if the problem is then being of G_d that it becomes impossible to define something from the inside – and as G-d is infinite (in my def), G-d can't perceive G_d either – there is no other view as G_d is infinite."

    If G_d can't perceive himself, then might this be the impetus for him to create a reflection?

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    If we "break up" the levels that might exist between us and G_d several first causes become secondary causes, etc., that cause varying effects as his emanation proceeds "downward". Somewhere in that chain, might there be possibility to "know" G_d at only such a level, from the human perspective? Its not saying that we can "know" G_d with absolute direction, but we can certainly know G_d through his effects. Kind of like detecting Dark Matter. We can't see Dark Matter but we know for it exist because of its effect on everything surrounding it. We know G_d and experience G_d in this sense, because if everything stems from G_d, he is thus everywhere."


    "jlockest: But where does all that come from? That is just stuff you've read. Can you show from your own thoughts that there have to be any levels at all? I tried to work in my def from the premise of '...if G_d does exist, what must be 'true'…'. IE G-d must be infinite as there can be nothing oustside of G-d that isn't G_d or created by G_d – it then follows, the we must be of G_d ."


    If we accept that there are first, secondary, and then further causes emanating from the source, as I described earlier, then G_d has already formed degrees of creation that extend outward. With this, we also have the implication now of there being an 'inside' and an 'outside', although we might consider the presence of G_d might be considered to be in everything and everywhere. Consider it like the domino effect wherein one action precedes to effect the course of the others that follow. They are all domino, rising to the cause of performing what dominos do, there is no value in establishing a hierarchy between them but in the chain there are different intervals where we can point to one and stop the chain. They are unified but they are different units at the same time. This is how I might see it, although this is finite. Something infinite could be addressed in cycles. With a beginning, an end, and then another beginning all over again. If there is no cycle, there is no infinity, if there is no infinity, there is no lasting definition. All things transpire.

  9. #9
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    "Quote Originally Posted by jl
    From what I see above, I don't 'need' G_d - I may want G_d - but I want that G_d to be 'good' and to treat me as special - but I can't see that that follows in the slightest. But that is just me.

    I need to think on this - as is G_d unprovable simply because G_d is infinite - do you need to be outside of something to be able to prove it exists? And if we are then part of G_d the task is then totally impossible? Even G-d can't define G_d - I am that I am is all but the best definition you can have. The only information we can have about G_d comes from G_d. We experience nothing that is not G_d. G_d experiences nothing that is not G_d. G_d is self reflection.

    I'm not certain then that I need a G_d construct - a big bang effectively gives me the same - apart from it doesn't avoid the '..what created the big bang...'.

    Brain ache.."

    "Quote Originally Posted by hayward
    Here is where I am thinking now- I don't think that G_d is knowable in the fullest-direct sense, because clearly if we extend all causes back and beyond all of what we know or experience either first hand or through philosophy or science or reason, we are getting to a point that is beyond definition and beyond description. Unless, of course, we have somehow shed this mortal coil and have become one with the source."

    "jlockest: But in my def we are one with the source. We can never be anything else."


    But this assumes there are no degrees between us and G_d. Yes we are of his essence, but this doesn't automatically imply that our consciousness or experience is the same as his.

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    However, to consider that from G_d all things extend out from, then the entire universe and everything in it is then a part of how we experience G_d. As others before us have stated, in the physical realm, where we found ourselves to exist, that this is simply the lowest density of G_d's emanation and that for other energies, physical or otherwise, these just represent other densities."

    "jlockest- But there you go again referring to densities. Who says there are multiple densities – is there any thing you can logically state shows them if you work from the premise '...what must G_d be….'? I don't see any need for levels at all."


    I think I've already described the idea behind this. Stated another way, it can be like energy that begins at one point, becomes more and more substantiated, turns into a gas, starts to collect dust and turns into a physical body. The slower that the vibrations of energy move, the more dense is the object it is formed into.

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    I think the ultimate question herein is with regard to free will. If we accept that duality also extends from the single source emanation of G_d, then such forces which exist in opposition are also found under the first cause, as described, without a subjective value attached. To allow for such duality suggests that at some level, we do become involved in a manner of dealing with and reconciling such differences, if we are to know G_d more than that capacity. We are left to to chose either one extreme, the other, or to synthesize a balanced reconciliation between them."

    "No, not that I see in my def. G_d created what we perceive, the same as we were created. We, and what we experience is part of G_d – of G_d. There is no free will. All is cause and effect. We don't reconcile the differences, we just experience them. We experience heat,colour, life, death, love, hate, good,bad...G-d created us to experience them."

    This doesn't work for me because it assume that G_d's direct intention is behind every image you see, every thought you have, every thing you experience. The forces and energies in space for example, as an analogy, might be the direct result of several preceding causes that occurred to bring them where they are at that finite moment. But their interaction in space is free, they can collide, they can be pulled in other directions in the sea of other minor forces at play in the area. All of that is playing out G_d's laws, but it doesn't insinuate that the agent is playing them directly all against each other like toys in space.

    G_d may be the first cause behind them, but is not necessarily the agent telling you what to do, what to think, when to do it. Many of these events or factors have other limited causes that themselves can be the result of many other previous causes. I see this through the understanding that there are the various degrees between us and G_d.

    "Quote Originally Posted by H
    Perhaps these were the circumstances G_D placed: a mirror-image of the indivisible singularity of the "macrocosm" found in the limited objectivity of the "microcosm", through a model of reconciling duality in the middle. Perhaps below this level everything must be reconciled, to return to G_D to know more of G_D."

    "But I repeat, in my model, you are part of G-d already, so what is there to return to?
    I still don't see a need for G_d. I still want G_d, but I don't see (in my def) that I need G_d for us to exist. An infinite universe would suffice – as the issue with the first cause is the same irrespective of whether you introduce G_d or not."


    With these degrees between us and G_d, I see that we do have choice in the matter. We can either attend to G_d's presence found as evidence in the things around us, or not. In the greater scheme, although we might say that G_d's presence fathered all things, I think G_d will allow you to do one thing or other, there is no 'better' for him, there just simply 'is'. The difference is knowing whether or not in fact you do understand you are a part of G_d or not, and then trying to figure out how.

  10. #10
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    H,
    Instead of just stating that there are levels - can you show how they must exist in the model?That is what I have been trying to here. To prove what G_d may be defined as if we assume that G_d exists in the first place. If they don't fit my model - state your model and why they must exist in that.

    The rest:
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    The point of singularity, an original and final emanation, one whom nothing had created, yet from whom all things would transpire. G_d is within all, all is within G_d. All stems from G_d, thus all returns to G_d."
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    No I don't think so. In my definition – which presumably you're replying to - you can't return to something that you are already. That you are actually part of."
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    This definition however assumes that there are no 'degrees' between us and G_d, that everything is finite in this scheme, that there is no relativity at any point. G_d is everywhere, and everything is the result of the first cause. Secondary causes, tertiary causes, all ripple outward as a result stemming back to the first. G_d's presence is thus everywhere. G_d is in the walls surrounding me. but are the walls G_d? Not necessarily.
    Add the degrees then. Show how/why they must exist in the model. If G_d is infinite, then we are made of G_d and of the substance of G_d – where do the levels fit?

    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    The
    implication there is that if G_d exists G_d is us - we are a fundamental part of G_d. But we are not special in any way - as everything is part of G_d.
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    Certainly. Any hierarchy in this scenario would be false, since all are from the same."
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    But all is still conjecture here. This is just based on MY definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    This assessment of something being conjecture is conjecture in and of itself, so we are to assume it matters to no one except for ourselves.
    I thought that is where we started from? That comments linking LRB to the higher consciousness were conjecture on conjecture. I am trying to show what G_d must be if G_d existed – but given that I can't prove my starting point (ie that G_d exists in the first place) – then it is all conjecture. But if I have a definition of G_d then maybe a proof follows?

    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    Effect:
    This is where I fall apart. The scope was simple. It seems, from human experience that G-d is not good/bad, hot/cold, red/blue. G_d is and must be everything. There are no limits to what we perceive - man just creates the limits - there are no limits as G_d is infinite, so everything within G_d is infinite. Infinite ranges of hot/cold, good/bad, love/hate. G_d just is - I am that I am.
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    Duality is thus by necessity a product of either the human mind, or of being conditioned to an experience of physical existence to begin with.
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    No – In my definition it follows that duality is the product of G_d. We are G_d – of then same substance. We can only perceive what we are meant to perceive. Therefore we were meant to perceive hot&cold,love&hate...etc."
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    Ok- so duality is the creation of G_d, but certainly it is not a limitation on his part, but a result of the degrees of causes extending from the first.
    How on earth can you know? If you are of G_d in G-d then how can you know any more than G_d wants you to know? And again you start on levels – obviously your belief incorporates them – so show how they must fit in the model.

    Quote Originally Posted by h
    G_d in and of himself, must be singular, all other things being a result of his reflection. But these reflections should be understood to break down into other stages like branches of a tree. The first becomes un-individuated and transpires into 1. The first versus the "nothing" substantiates a "2" These two interact and produce a third.....etc., etc.
    So the experience of duality is our concern, since it is a condition we are faced with. It could be a natural product of the evolution of G_d, not necessarily the result of a direct first- cause.
    There is no first cause other than G_d in this model (or explain how it can be). G_d can't reflect as there can be nothing outside of G_d – G-d being infinite. G_d can only introspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by h
    Because of our subjective disposition within the frame of mortality, everything is determined as a pair of opposites, as the ultimate reality within this context is life/death. As we create further values by interpreting the original impulse within the format of positive and negative qualities, (or of the things and then the thing's opposite), any attempt of moving to either one definition to its opposite must fall within the realm of subjectivity, since it was essentially not the thing in its original form. This is the idea I was trying to get at with the description of a "limitless objectivity", an unaffected position to rectify concern within a perspective of dichotomy or duality.
    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    "But in MY definition it is G_d who has furnished this reality. It is G_d who created life and death and all the ranges that make my life real. I can't escape it – as I am in it as part of G_d. If G_d didn't want me to perceive these things, I wouldn't."
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    I think the previous response I gave applies to this also.
    So I can experience stuff that G_D doesn't want me to?

    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    Cause:
    G-d has no cause as there is nothing outside of G_d to provide a cause.
    This also 'causes' me an issue - as my thoughts have cause - ie I am writing this because it is the effect of the discussion. I can't preclude my thoughts from cause/effect.
    But if we exist in G_d - what is cause for G_d mentally (or physically) creating us from his substance? There appears here to be a problem, but is it a problem caused by human perception? Can you have effect without cause? Human experience would say not.
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    Thus there would be no end to the limit of what extends from G_d as a first cause, but this doesn't necessarily state that the relationship is direct? You stated earlier the idea that G_d can not be known.
    In a physical sense. G-d can't know what G_d is – as nothing exists outside. G_d can introspect. Man can then only know what G_d wants us to know. So what any man knows could be all of G_d or a fraction – but man coluld never know how much or little he knew.

    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    :I thought I asked a question. I stated that G_d in my opinion hasn't been defined and hence the problem of proof. I then went onto to ask, if the problem is then being of G_d that it becomes impossible to define something from the inside – and as G-d is infinite (in my def), G-d can't perceive G_d either – there is no other view as G_d is infinite.
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    If G_d can't perceive himself, then might this be the impetus for him to create a reflection?
    OK – I think the term reflection doesn't work, as there can be nothing outside of G_d – but I follow the idea. The only bijou snaggette – is that if Gd can create anything from G_d as part of G_d – why the hassle of creating something to tell G_d what G_d must be aware of anyway? What I mean there is, that I create a device because I want it to fulfill a function – I know the function or else I can't create the device. If G_d wants to know G_d and that is within G_d power, the G_d would know G_d. Why would he need a medium?

    Quote Originally Posted by h
    If we "break up" the levels that might exist between us and G_d several first causes become secondary causes, etc., that cause varying effects as his emanation proceeds "downward". Somewhere in that chain, might there be possibility to "know" G_d at only such a level, from the human perspective? Its not saying that we can "know" G_d with absolute direction, but we can certainly know G_d through his effects. Kind of like detecting Dark Matter. We can't see Dark Matter but we know for it exist because of its effect on everything surrounding it. We know G_d and experience G_d in this sense, because if everything stems from G_d, he is thus everywhere.
    Might exist? If you want to use levels –can you show how they must fit?

    Quote Originally Posted by jl
    But where does all that come from? That is just stuff you've read. Can you show from your own thoughts that there have to be any levels at all? I tried to work in my def from the premise of '...if G_d does exist, what must be 'true'…'. IE G-d must be infinite as there can be nothing oustside of G-d that isn't G_d or created by G_d – it then follows, the we must be of G_d
    Quote Originally Posted by h
    If we accept that there are first, secondary, and then further causes emanating from the source, as I described earlier, then G_d has already formed degrees of creation that extend outward. With this, we also have the implication now of there being an 'inside' and an 'outside', although we might consider the presence of G_d might be considered to be in everything and everywhere. Consider it like the domino effect wherein one action precedes to effect the course of the others that follow. They are all domino, rising to the cause of performing what dominos do, there is no value in establishing a hierarchy between them but in the chain there are different intervals where we can point to one and stop the chain. They are unified but they are different units at the same time. This is how I might see it, although this is finite. Something infinite could be addressed in cycles. With a beginning, an end, and then another beginning all over again. If there is no cycle, there is no infinity, if there is no infinity, there is no lasting definition. All things transpire.
    But I don't see the need for levels – so why accept that they exist at all? Why must they fit in the model?

    I thought the model was 'logical' and each step proved the next – and I don't see levels so far – so can you modify the model to add in the levels and why they must exist?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts