Theory on God and existence

[ChongFire]

About a year and a half ago I came to the decision that I'm no longer christian. Since then I've been studying every source that has anything to do with our beginning. Its through my study of physics and cosmology that I've finally come to my belief in our origins. In the bible it says that god created us in "His" image. What if this does not refer to our physical appearance? To be able to create an entire universe and life inside of it god would not be bound by the phyisical attributes of it. My belief of what was meant by being created in his image is by consciencness. To help explain this, I'll define what I believe god is. I once pictured god as an extremely old man whose wisdom was beyond that of any man. I now think of god as an infinite consciencness. Imagine if you could that energy itself was conscience. All matter and all that drives matter in the universe is energy. If this is so then god would know everything because god is everything. This would lead to another statement and one of my beliefs that god is in fact everything. This infinite consciencness created a conscience image of itself, humans. As for my belief in how he created us, try to imagine in your mind if you could an aquarium. Now in this aquarium let there be three fish that are swimming around, eating, living and dieing. Everything they do they can feel and taste and experience. To the knowledge of these fish they exist. Now imagine you had the conscience capacity to create an entire universe. What if we are nothing more than a conscience creation. If so then take your aquarium in mind again. Everything that these fish do is a creation of your mind however random they may be. In this the fish are part of you. It is in this reasoning that I've come to believe that you and I are part of god and he is part of us. We all talk about how humans are connected. Not just humans, not even limited to just living things, but rather all matter is connected by a single being. It is in this belief that I've overcome my fear of death. I used to believe that after death you went to heaven or hell. I could not fathom that just because I wanted something I could not have that I was going to hell. I now believe that in death we do not stay a single consciencness but return to that greater consciencness that is us. If this is so then I am not only connected to you and everyone and everything but I am part of you and everyone and everything just as you are part of me. Heaven has always been defined as limited to only the good because it is perfect. If you look a little closer at existence itself you will find an uncanny resembalence to heaven. If radiation was even .001% off of what it is then nothing would exist. If gravity was even .001% off of what it is then nothing would exist. If magnetism were .001% off of what it is nothing would exist. If any of the elemental forces or atomic weights even .001% off of what they are then nothing would exist. So you could define existence and therefore life as absolutely perfect. What if this is heaven and we're all to ignorant to realize it. Let me ask you a question. If you could live all enternity in a world where everything was given to you and you had no challenges would you enjoy yourself? I know I wouldn't. Even now here on Earth I get bored sometimes and there are lots of challenges. What I'm trying to say is essentially that life is perfect and it will be here for a very long time. I believe that I, maybe not as Kyle, will always exist.

 

[Canute]

Hi ChongFire - Welcome to the bearpit.

You've kicked off with very brave post. Don't be suprised if it's removed from metaphysics.

As it happens there are a few people here who'd agree with most of what you've said, and I'm one of them. However, the term 'God' is highly emotive and I'd rather avoid it.

Did you know that roughly-speaking you're expounding the doctrine of the Hindu Upanishads, and of Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Theosophists, Essenes, Rosicrucians, Gnostics, Joachites, Orthodox Christians and the rest? What you may find more astonishing, having given up Christianity, is that if you check out the Nag Hammadi library, in particular the Gospels of Thomas and Mary, the Essene Gospel of Peace and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve I think you'll find you're still a Christian. (It's all online). Alternatively, check out the Philokalia, a collection of writings by Christian contemplatives covering a few centuries, and especially those by Evagrios the Solitary.

However, the view these texts propose is slightly different from yours and these differences are crucial to its plausibility. For example, you suggest that we return to a fundamental state of being on the death of our bodies and minds. According to the mystics it is certainly within our power as human beings to ensure that this happens, but it does not necessarily happen. It is much more likely that we will yet again miss the opportunity and find ourselves in another life, struggling to make sense of it all.

Good luck
Canute

 

[Eric England]

You've kicked off with very brave post. Don't be suprised if it's removed from metaphysics.

According to the mystics it is certainly within our power as human beings to ensure that this happens, but it does not necessarily happen. It is much more likely that we will yet again miss the opportunity and find ourselves in another life, struggling to make sense of it all.

God is the Absolute. The question of the Absolute can be asked in physics, metaphysics, cosmology, philosophy, logic, and religion.

As for ensuring anything – our desires seem literal to us, but are figurative to the Absolute. The Absolute's will is literal, ours is figurative. It's in the giving up of the illusion that ours is literal, that we allow ourselves (in this body or not) to be where we always are – inside of and a step behind, the will of the Absolute.

Giving up on Christianity can be a good thing, as long as you don't give up on the Absolute. Giving up on any religion that has a false absolute(s), which they all do – will bring you to the invisible Absolute and the never ending question of trust in it.

 

[ChongFire]

Faith

First when I use the term god its only for lack of a better word. And secondly I can not be and will not be for I refuse to be Christian as I strongly disagree with their teachings. The belief that you must love Christ the son of "god" or you will go to hell is not something I can believe. It is my belief that "god" created us for the sole purpose to enjoy life. This doesn't mean I should go join some hippies and start doing drugs it just means make the best out of it. I don't know if I will ever proclaim to be part of a particular religion because I believe all religions to be flawed, however I will definitely look into as many as I can and take what I feel to be true from each and every one of them. My belief will not be based on what someone teaches me to believe but what I come to believe myself. I greatly appreciate any and all input you have for me because it is only recently that I've become a student of life. Everything you think would be helpful for me to study or read I most definately will.

 

[sneez]

this helps to me when i contemplate: "be humble enough to realize limitations of your own perceptions". This goes both ways; don't trade one belief for other (even though opposite).

book that is an invitation to critical thinking: Carl sagan: demon haunted world, Thomas Gilovich : how we konw, what is not so.

 

[loseyourname]

Just to note on the religious discussion guidelines, I see no reason as of now to move this or delete it or close it. The simplified rule I invoke is that rational theology is allowed, revealed theology is not. In other words, so long as you are making an argument that is not an argument from scripture, and are not arguing specifically for scriptural claims, you're fine. When we get into topics on mysticism, they teeter on the border a bit, in the sense that they are damn close to divine revelation, but are nonetheless not exactly handed down from authority, in which case I'll just look at a case by case basis and invoke the spirit of the rule: no fighting. If a discussion looks like it might lead to a fight, it's gone. This certainly does not look that way.

 

[Canute]

Eric

I would disagree with you on some details, but another time. I feel that the Absolute you describe is precisely what lies behind most religions, buried under the clutter.

First when I use the term god its only for lack of a better word. And secondly I can not be and will not be for I refuse to be Christian as I strongly disagree with their teachings. The belief that you must love Christ the son of "god" or you will go to hell is not something I can believe.

Yes, but the Christianity of the Roman Church, the state religion of the Empire, which you want nothing to do with (nor me) is not the Christianity taught by Jesus IMHO. That's why I suggested reading some of the Gospels not approved by the western Church.

I don't know if I will ever proclaim to be part of a particular religion because I believe all religions to be flawed, however I will definitely look into as many as I can and take what I feel to be true from each and every one of them. My belief will not be based on what someone teaches me to believe but what I come to believe myself.

Good stuff. Don't believe anything anyone tells you except provisionally. This is the method recommended by seekers of the Grail the world over.

Everything you think would be helpful for me to study or read I most definitely will.

There's a great little series called 'The Essence of ... ' (Taoism, Sufism, Gnosticism etc. Eagle Editions). These are very good indeed and make it easy to see that there is only one mysticism despite the plethora of religious expressions of it. Thus ones religion becomes a matter of preference, a choice of methodology, aesthetics, culture etc., not a choice between different cosmologies.

 

[Canute]

loseyourname

Your approach seems very fair. However, a weakness of this site IMO is that there is nowhere to discuss mysticism properly. I'm not talking about revealed wisdom. I agree with you about that. Appeals to direct experience carry no weight in discussion and are rather pointless when made by email. However, it is perfectly possible to discuss the mystical cosmology without having to appeal to experience. Do you think it might be possible to open up a new category? It might bring a little clarity if mysticism had a home of its own and did not always have to be mixed up with other topics. Just a thought.

 

[loseyourname]

You could suggest it. I wouldn't personally mind so long as there were enough people on board that would use that part of the forum. In fact, I find that kind of stuff incredibly fascinating if for nothing other than scholarly reasons, in which case, it would probably belong in Social Sciences, as a subset of Anthropology.

The only problem I see is that the rest of the staff is likely to see it as no more productive than the old monotheistic religious scripture discussions they banned and not be very open to the idea. You'd have to make a good case, since it's far from the original intent of the board. But hey, they did include a humanities and history section, which is basically pure scholarship, so as long as you convinced them enough people were interested and it wouldn't be used to promote religous views so much as properly understand what they are . . .

 

[Canute]

Yeah, I think you've illustrated the problem. Until there is some proper discussion about it then people will go on assuming that mysticism is theism. They will also go on assuming it's not an empirical discipline just a rigorous as physics. This is precisely the reason I'd like to see a dedicated section. Maybe I'll suggest it and see what happens. Or perhaps I'll ask it as a question and see what everybody else thinks first.

I note that in a sticky (!) in the PF Lounge mysticism is placed in the same category as UFO experiences, New Age mythology and God-knows what else. This is the sort of idiocy that ought to be impossible on a site like this IMO.

 

[Eric England]

I feel that the Absolute you describe is precisely what lies behind most religions, buried under the clutter.

If I understand your intent, yes. And it's also buried under the clutter of science and philosophy.

The clutter is caused in all cases – by the mistaken belief there is an "absolute" on the inside of the Absolute. A God incarnate, a truth, a particle, wave, string etc.

 

[Rade]

...I now think of god as an infinite consciencness. Imagine if you could that energy itself was conscience. All matter and all that drives matter in the universe is energy. If this is so then god would know everything because god is everything...

If your god can only know every "thing", then your god is limited and not perfect, for the perfect god would know everything and nothing equally--that is, the perfect god would know the no"thing"ness of pure energy. I find a less than perfect concept of god wanting.

 

[Canute]

If I understand your intent, yes. And it's also buried under the clutter of science and philosophy.

The clutter is caused in all cases – by the mistaken belief there is an "absolute" on the inside of the Absolute. A God incarnate, a truth, a particle, wave, string etc.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

 

[Canute]

Loseyouname

Sorry for the earlier comment. I see I misread your post. Please ignore what I said about illustrating the problem. It was me illustrating that I had misread what you said.

 

[ChongFire]

If your god can only know every "thing", then your god is limited and not perfect, for the perfect god would know everything and nothing equally--that is, the perfect god would know the no"thing"ness of pure energy. I find a less than perfect concept of god wanting.

In my previous statement I did not mean to describe God as energy but rather energy as God. At this I mean energy is created and therefore part of God. This is not everything that God is though. To attempt to conceive what God is, is frankly mind boggling.

 

[Eric England]

God is beyond ALL.

When this is "realized" (believed) – there is one more step.

"To put trust in" (faith) – "the unconceivable".

Having a "conversation" with God is a process of what "seems like talking to yourself". It is the figuarative "I" talking with the literal I. Your "one" relating to THE one and vice versa.

The results of these conversations, are tangible and helpful, given these things – awareness, subtlety, discrimination and patience.

The results can occur within your "head" and without you. Wait and "see".

 

[ChongFire]

If your god can only know every "thing", then your god is limited and not perfect, for the perfect god would know everything and nothing equally--that is, the perfect god would know the no"thing"ness of pure energy. I find a less than perfect concept of god wanting.

At this I will bring up the Aquarium again. In essence you are every part of these fish. You are the fish and their thoughts, desires and fears. You are also what make them up. But you are not only the aquarium. You are more complex then these fish could even imagine for they are limited to the laws which you have bestowed upon them. As you are not limited to the laws of the aquarium neither is god subject to the laws of the universe. To us infinity is inconcievable. Gods conscioucness is infinite.

 

[Eric England]

To us infinity is inconcievable. Gods conscioucness is infinite.

Infinite – without beginning or end. If something doesn't begin, it can't be said that it actually happens.

Describing God as infinite is common, but it actually disproves God's existence (attemts to). God actually happens (if there is a God) – it is beyond infinite. So is its consciousness (focus).

"God" is beyond having no beginning or end. These are attributes that can only be applied to one definition of the universe (infinite). Having a beginning and end, the universe would be finite.

 

[Rade]

..To us infinity is inconcievable...

I conceive infinity in a variety of ways, the "limit" of the calculus, the inability to conceive the largest positive integer on the number line, conceived lack of causality to existence (e.g., existence exists).

 

[Rade]

At this I will bring up the Aquarium again. In essence you are every part of these fish. You are the fish and their thoughts, desires and fears...You are more complex then these fish could even imagine for they are limited to the laws which you have bestowed upon them...

Well, no, I would suggest that you (and I) are limited to the laws (of vertebrate embrology) that the fish have bestowed upon us.

 

[ChongFire]

Well, no, I would suggest that you (and I) are limited to the laws (of vertebrate embrology) that the fish have bestowed upon us.

I'm not understanding what you are meaning. If you are referring to evolution from marine life then you might want to reread my original post. I'm talking about a mental experiment of an aquarium. If you do understand what I am meaning then forget the aquarium. Imagine it to be a valley in which an animal with two spines exists. Apply the same concept to this animal. However you look at it this animal is defined by how you define it.

 

[Evo]

"God" is beyond having no beginning or end. These are attributes that can only be applied to one definition of the universe (infinite). Having a beginning and end, the universe would be finite.

What god are you referring to? There are thousands of gods. Are you referring to the trout god of the Ainu? The snake god? The turtle god? Or are you not aware of these gods? You wouldn't be saying these gods aren't valid? They are just as real as every other god.

You guys aren't discussing Christianity are you?

 

[Eric England]

What god are you referring to? There are thousands of gods. Are you referring to the trout god of the Ainu? The snake god? The turtle god? Or are you not aware of these gods? You wouldn't be saying these gods aren't valid? They are just as real as every other god. You guys aren't discussing Christianity are you?

God is the Absolute. The question of the Absolute can be asked in physics, metaphysics, cosmology, philosophy, logic, and religion.

Next...

 

[Evo]

No, god is not the absolute when there can be a pantheon of gods.

Which god are you discussing?

Also, the gods in most mythologies had weaknesses which caused their demise. So, your statement that "god is the absolute" is false.

 

[Evo]

God is beyond ALL.

When this is "realized" (believed) – there is one more step.

"To put trust in" (faith) – "the unconceivable".

Having a "conversation" with God is a process of what "seems like talking to yourself". It is the figuarative "I" talking with the literal I. Your "one" relating to THE one and vice versa.

The results of these conversations, are tangible and helpful, given these things – awareness, subtlety, discrimination and patience.

The results can occur within your "head" and without you. Wait and "see".

How often do you talk to the trout?

 

[Andre]

Now, let's see what my two cent ramble would get me to pertaining the tension between science and religion.

Perhaps that the billions year evolution gradually increased the focus / instinct of all species on survival, both the species and the individual specimens. When the ability to think logical evolved, it appears that this instinct governed thinking.

The urge to survive, requires security and resents surprises. Therefore it's paramount to understand the nature of things, in order to know what is best to secure the future for us as individual and as a species and forfill the primary requirement for our instincts to survival.

But nature surprises us with a deluge of complicated phenomenons which made it apparent to early humans that there must be some higher order of something undefinable that makes the rules. And with an abundance of fallacies, like the post hoc - propter hoc (after this...hence because of this...) religions emerged with a complicated set of rules and rituals fighting the evil witches, devils and dragons and please the deities in an attempt to secure survival and prosperity. It's all a lot more complicated but if it makes you happy, why not?

Why not? Because rationality tends to prevail -one wants to understand- and even Plato already understood that religion is in fact fallacious. So, objective science slowly emerged, repelling any irrational religion-logic. But it has the same objective as religion, to secure survival and stimulate prosperity. Thus, both are competing each other obviously, which explains the policy of the management of this place.

Interestingly enough, the most important feature of religion, - blind fate - is the biggest taboo in science.

As long as science has no answers to the essential questions of the universe and life, it is each individuals choice where to put it's *fate*.

 

[Eric England]

No, god is not the absolute when there can be a pantheon of gods. Which god are you discussing?

The Absolute (only) one.

Also, the gods in most mythologies had weaknesses which caused their demise. So, your statement that "god is the absolute" is false.

Those gods are false.

How often do you talk to the trout?

On the rare occasion I feel like having one for dinner.

 

[Eric England]

Interestingly enough, the most important feature of religion, - blind fate - is the biggest taboo in science.

This can be thought of differently. The biggest tool in science is blind fate. Every attempt to redifine or refine science, is based on not knowing if the answer will come.

As long as science has no answers to the essential questions of the universe and life, it is each individuals choice where to put it's *fate*.

Yes, science seems to give itself credit, where credit is not yet due.

 

[rkkane]

Those gods are false.

how do you know which gods are false?


anyway back to the "aquarium", this is nothing like the universe, for these fish to move you have to make them move so there is no free will involved. do you think you have free will?

and how can you be sure that it is you creating the fish and not them creating you from their own imaginations? after all if you were imaginary you would not know unless the fish imagined you to know.

 

[Eric England]

how do you know which gods are false?

If they have an outside they're false.

 

[Evo]

If they have an outside they're false.

That's nonsense.

 

[Eric England]

Define sense in all its "senses", then we can talk about the "non" version of sense.

 

[Evo]

Define sense in all its "senses", then we can talk about the "non" version of sense.

No, you explain how you can make a statement like

how do you know which gods are false?

If they have an outside they're false.

and expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[rkkane]

If they have an outside they're false.

Define sense in all its "senses", then we can talk about the "non" version of sense.

this sounds like what a wacky fortune teller would say.

you don't actually know anything about any god you can only make assumptions, but if your going to assume don't say it like its a hard fact.

 

[loseyourname]

Eric is echoing a sentiment that runs all the way back to Xenophanes:

1. God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind. [Zeller, Vorsokrastische Philosophie, p. 530, n. 3.]

2. The whole [of god] sees, the whole perceives, the whole hears. [Zeller, 526, n. 1. No author is given in the context; Karsten follows Fabricius in accrediting it to Xenophanes.]

3. But without effort he sets in motion all things by mind and thought.

4. It [i.e. being] always abides in the same place, not moved at all, nor is it fitting that it should move from one place to another.

5. But mortals suppose that the gods are born (as they themselves are), and that they wear man's clothing and have human voice and body. [Zeller, 524, n. 2. Cf Arist. Rhet. ii. 23; 1399 b 6.]

6. But if cattle or lions had hands, so as to paint with their hands and produce works of art as men do, they would paint their gods and give them bodies in form like their own-horses like horses, cattle like cattle. [Zeller, 525, n. 2. Diog Laer. iii. 16; Cic. de nat. Deor. i. 27.]

link

Unfortunately, as far ahead of his time as Xenophanes was (he was certainly a rebel and arguably the first monotheist in western civilization), his thinking does amount to "this makes sense, therefore it must be true" and even he puts up more of an argument than we are seeing here. Bald assertions about absolute nature that are not substantiated, but simply claimed with increasing conviction, are not appropriate for this forum, regardless of whether or not they are correct.

That and the fact that this thread has strayed beyond its intended purpose and is devolving into a fight results in closure.