Self Proving

[sealchan]

I was leaning to the spiritual existence
as I believe ....Spirit First

I've been reviewing my own version of God's backstory (Updating the Genesis Creation Story) and it reminds me of several issues regarding us human beings contemplating the emergence of being itself.

• How does a potential for God become an actual God?
• Is there ever a Potter without a pre-existing Clay?
• How can God come to self-assurance regarding His own being and reality if He/She/It is initially alone? Is it simply divine self-affirmation or would God require some sort of proof of Himself?
• Is God self-aware first or does God develop self-awareness after His/Her/Its first becoming?

A good exercise to try is to write down your own, most rationally thought out story of how the Universe came into being. Every quality and every word you use to describe reality must come into play. What order did it all arise in, what makes sense conceptually when you begin with the words...in the beginning.

Even these three words have already led the author into a trap which is not to be escaped. What happened "before the beginning?"

 

[sealchan]

Understanding the current view of the science of evolution is important here that is why I emphasized eggs plural. Evolution of new species takes place in populations and not individuals, therefore eggs are first. Species do not exist outside communities, and it is communities that evolve.

Right, and your answer is still reasonable within the assumption of my question. But as you indicate, I think that my question, and the OP, stand on highly unstable ground.

Our minds use the concept of "cause and effect" as a root metaphor for understanding the world and this, IMO, gives rise to the deep intuition that "someone must be first". But the systemic nature of the world and, perhaps, the quantum nature of the world don't support this fundamental intuition when you go back to the beginning.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

think of existence as a video
if you prefer.....the arrow of time

point the arrow back from whence it came

Someone holding the bow?

Just keeps going back. One moment slightly different than the previous.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . an obvious what?!?!!?

an obvious unproven statement?

That's my vote, at least...

 

[godnotgod]

mmmmm.......more like.....

Someone had to be First .....as a statement that cannot be denied

Poor Thief! Still stuck in thumb-sucking Time, Space, and Causation, beating the dead horse to death over and over again ad nauseum, LOL, Alas. The ego just won't die, but die it must, though it persists in it's lawsuit to go on in perpetuity. Heaven just won't have it, I'm afraid.

 

[godnotgod]

I think ...therefore ....I AM!

ha ha ha ha ha.....So...when you're not thinking, you don't exist?

re: Rene Descarte's cogito ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am":

Kierkegaard's critique
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard calls the phrase a tautology in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript.[33] He argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into the premises "'x' thinks" and "I am that 'x'", where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks. As Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Cogito, ergo sum - Wikipedia

What few people consider is that which is making the statement to begin with, ie; that which is referring to 'I'. Anyone?

 

[Thief]

Poor Thief! Still stuck in thumb-sucking Time, Space, and Causation, beating the dead horse to death over and over again ad nauseum, LOL, Alas. The ego just won't die, but die it must, though it persists in it's lawsuit to go on in perpetuity. Heaven just won't have it, I'm afraid.

it seems.....for you anyway.....God is dead

 

[Thief]

that which is referring to 'I'. Anyone?

that ..."I"......

would be God

but it seems you want Him dead

otherwise your post holds nothing

oooh.....that's it......
you think
you are nothing

 

[Thief]

someone had to be first

to think....to feel....

I simply don't believe substance can 'self' generate

a Spirit was involved

 

[godnotgod]

that ..."I"......

would be God

but it seems you want Him dead

otherwise your post holds nothing

oooh.....that's it......
you think
you are nothing

Well what 'something' do you fancy YOURSELF to be, and while you're figuring that out, tell me: who, or what is it that thinks itself to be 'I'? Answer that question, Thief, and you shall be released from the eternal grave.

'God' is not dead; the old idea of God is dead. You know. The one you keep trying to sell us, the one Hegel called 'that gaseous vertebrate', LOL.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”

― Kalu Rinpoche

 

[godnotgod]

someone had to be first

to think....to feel....

I simply don't believe substance can 'self' generate

a Spirit was involved

'I am the Alpha and the Omega'.

Can you see that there is no 'first' or 'last'?

When Yeshua said...

'Before Abraham was, I Am',

...he meant that he does not live in Time or Space, but in this eternal Present Moment. His spirit does not come and go, and therefore 'first' and 'last' are meaningless to a man of the spirit. Understand?

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
As to the spirit: I call it `spirit` and GnG calls it `spirit` and you call it `spirit` !
Maybe the `spirit` is us, as each of us being `I Am`, and we don't need a `God` ?
Now...about that heaven of which you speak.....

 

[Audie]

hey Audie,
Can you spell this word for me...." enigmiasis"

Enigma+iasis

 

[`mud]

I thought that was what you meant.
Couldn't find it, didn't try very hard.
I don't really have any enigmas,
that I could admit to, do I have ?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

someone had to be first

to think....to feel....

I simply don't believe substance can 'self' generate

a Spirit was involved

and again, none of this is self-proving. all you have done is eliminate one kind of answer (that substance can 'self' generate), and impose another kind of answer, the extreme case that some one singular omnimax Spirit was involved...which is also not self-proving.

In fact, to justify your position (and I will point out that it does not prove your point), you keep referring to sections of text in one particular religious book...which in itself is not "self-proving"...

I have no problem with the fact that you believe what you assert...but I still do not get how what you believe is "self-proving." Could you do us the favor of actually explaining how what you say is self-proving?

 

[godnotgod]

hey Thief,
As to the spirit: I call it `spirit` and GnG calls it `spirit` and you call it `spirit` !
Maybe the `spirit` is us, as each of us being `I Am`, and we don't need a `God` ?
Now...about that heaven of which you speak.....

Thanks mud.

I use the term 'spirit' interchangeably with 'Universal Consciousness', 'soul' (not A soul), and 'space'. Now if you can imagine this 'spirit' as having a sense of divine play, then what you have is 'the world', and that, of course, includes you and I. So in this sense, what we refer to as individual selves ('I'), is in reality, the universal spirit playing itself as, and hiding within 'you' and 'I', in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. So the Hindus say: 'tat tvam asi', ie; 'thou art That'. We are none other than Universal Consciousness acting out the drama of a fictional self in the state of Identification. Compelling, no?

When you experience a spiritual awakening, you realize what your true nature actually is, that being Universal Consciousness, and not the fictional Joe Blow in a business suit playing out his drama in everyday 'life'. 'Joe Blow' is a fraud, and he knows it! ha ha ha But in the end, it is all just One Big Act, and 'a good time was had by all.'

 

[`mud]

Ahh...GnG, you are a twistologist aren't you !
Spirit is the Stuff of Life, born with it, Live with it.
Twist it as you will, it's still Stuff, sans `God` or not !
Catch that twist did you ?

 

[godnotgod]

Ahh...GnG, you are a twistologist aren't you !
Spirit is the Stuff of Life, born with it, Live with it.
Twist it as you will, it's still Stuff, sans `God` or not !
Catch that twist did you ?

What's the difference between space and spirit and consciousness?

'Stuff' is just an illusion. There is no 'stuff'. There is only the appearance of stuff. We mistake form for 'things'. What you call 'stuff' is what you see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. 'Stuff' is perception. What makes things look like 'stuff' is consciousness.

All 'things' are empty of inherent self-nature.

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

Heart Sutra

As David Tong, theoretical physicist says: 'There are no 'particles' in the world....what we call 'particles' are actually 'bundles of energy' emerging from the Quantum Field'. Here's the cutting edge:

 

[`mud]

Cconsciousness...the awareness of things that persist about us, and in us, Stuff.
That when we die, the consciousness is left behind, and cognizance follows it.
The spirit within us disolves into the natural order of the Earth and the Cosmos.
The Cosmos, `space` and occupants of it contains no consciousness, just Stuff.
The Stuff that we came from, and where we eventually will find a way to settle in.
There are no particles, just the tiny ripples in littler waves of bigger waves of Stuff.
And Tong sucks ! Just more chalk on bigger transparant blackboards, sans thought.

 

[Thief]

and again, none of this is self-proving. all you have done is eliminate one kind of answer (that substance can 'self' generate), and impose another kind of answer, the extreme case that some one singular omnimax Spirit was involved...which is also not self-proving.

In fact, to justify your position (and I will point out that it does not prove your point), you keep referring to sections of text in one particular religious book...which in itself is not "self-proving"...

I have no problem with the fact that you believe what you assert...but I still do not get how what you believe is "self-proving." Could you do us the favor of actually explaining how what you say is self-proving?

I don't read Genesis like most people
if ever you have read my postings over the years you might have noticed


it's a regression......take all of the movement and go back to the start

decide....Spirit first?....or substance

Spirit first?....oh yeah

more than one to say ......I AM!.......????????

it's not written.....We ARE!

why do you object to? .....I AM!