Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical matter.
Discuss.
Discuss.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Defining GOD
- Thread starter Ostronomos
- Start date
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
We've had threads kind of like this before. What becomes evident from them is that the theists/polytheists all have different definitions and attributes of God.
If there's a definition everyone agrees on, I'll be impressed.
If there's a definition everyone agrees on, I'll be impressed.
... and more, automatically syncs up everyone's defintion.
Zeus... and more
Jesus... and more
The Dao... and more
The-Most-High... and more
The Flying Spaghetti Monster... and more
YHWH... and more
Allah... and more
Brahman... and more
Concsiousness.. and more
Energy... and more
Nature... and more
The universe... and more
etc.
now we're all talking about the same thing. Finally.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I agree that this proposal could, in theory, work.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Will everyone agree? It'll take a miracle.
To me, it sounds rational. Maybe a tad confusing in some instances, like if someone said "God is nothing and more", do they mean he is less than nothing or more than nothing?
But a better question - as you said - would be whether people agree on things.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
I agree But I wouldn’t call them lower I’d call them different
... that's a beautiful paradox, isn't it?
Samad (Filled). You can't do + to that. It has all by definition, filled completely.Will everyone agree? It'll take a miracle.
I think filled + more = filled
God = God + creation.
There is no more to God which is why I'm panentheistic.
Quran 112:2.
Doesn't work for me, sorry.
Strike one - god (singular) rather than gods (plural).
Strike two - using the nebulous and often incoherent concept of "consciousness"
Strike three - hierarchical thinking about reality (e.g., physical as "lower")
Strike one - god (singular) rather than gods (plural).
Strike two - using the nebulous and often incoherent concept of "consciousness"
Strike three - hierarchical thinking about reality (e.g., physical as "lower")
That's one fair way of putting it.
My conceptual objection is that 'filled' has a border, a limit, a boundary. I would not equate the container with the source.
... and more
@Link Jeremiah knows. 23:23-24?
23:23
האלהי מקרב אני נאם־יהוה ולא אלהי מרחק׃
Am I a God near at hand, says the Lord, and not a God far away?
23:24
אם־יסתר איש במסתרים ואני לא־אראנו נאם־יהוה הלוא את־השמים ואת־הארץ אני מלא נאם־יהוה׃
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? said the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord.
Both close and far?
What are the limits of heaven?
Can ANY hide? ANY?
23:23
האלהי מקרב אני נאם־יהוה ולא אלהי מרחק׃
Am I a God near at hand, says the Lord, and not a God far away?
23:24
אם־יסתר איש במסתרים ואני לא־אראנו נאם־יהוה הלוא את־השמים ואת־הארץ אני מלא נאם־יהוה׃
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? said the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord.
Both close and far?
What are the limits of heaven?
Can ANY hide? ANY?
I am non-dualist, so I don't believe physical and spiritual can both exist. They are defined with respect to each other to have no possible interaction. Yet, I only know of qualia (idea type existence) and cannot even imagine other than that (material type) in essence being possible to exist.
The argument is as follows:
(1) Material vs Spirituality cannot have interaction (can go to details)
(2) All possible things can have interaction (can go details)
c1 Therefore it's either Material or spiritual nature that is possible (1) + (2)
(3) I know spiritual nature is possible with certainty (can go details)
c2 Therefore Material existence is not possible c1 + 3
Therefore there is no physical reality, it's a simulation of spiritual realities. Just like a dream except universal.
The argument is as follows:
(1) Material vs Spirituality cannot have interaction (can go to details)
(2) All possible things can have interaction (can go details)
c1 Therefore it's either Material or spiritual nature that is possible (1) + (2)
(3) I know spiritual nature is possible with certainty (can go details)
c2 Therefore Material existence is not possible c1 + 3
Therefore there is no physical reality, it's a simulation of spiritual realities. Just like a dream except universal.
Nice passages.
I think filled cannot have a border. It can't lack a possible life.My conceptual objection is that 'filled' has a border, a limit, a boundary. I would not equate the container with the source.
... and more