• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

[MEGA] God v.2

Well, if you and I are persons the Source of our existence probably contains personality, albeit of an omni-X nature. How could we have qualities that our Source doesn't have?
There's a sanskrit word for that: BHAGAVAN (bhag= quality/opulence; VAN= one who possesses). Bhagavan (God) possesses all qualities to an unlimited degree, which the subjective aspects of Her/Himself reflect.
We're all God, and yet we're not. :)

oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate
Translation:
The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

In defense of the use of the word 'Him'... studying the vedas you'll read that God is the supreme ENERGETIC/ACTIVE principle, archetypical masculine themes, whereas the feminine aspect of Godhead is considered the ENERGY/RESPONSIVE principle, which refers to His subjective aspects (which means we're all female) :D
 
Roger&Me said:
I see god as the totality of existence; the entire universe, and the underlying algorithm that unites it as one system. I am a part of god and so are you. :) At least that's what I believe.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I see it. The bible says we were created in god's image, which I cannot argue with. The universe (god) is made up of the same elements as I am. I've tried to explain this concept to my religious grandmother when she asked if I believed in god, but she didnt exactly follow.

To me, the word "god" is interchangeable with the word 'universe'
 
Bardo5 said:
To me, the word "god" is interchangeable with the word 'universe'
Click to expand...
Is it? The universe is so small compared to God, if He exists. And if He does, by definition He's omnipotent. To call God the Universe or vice-versa would seem an injustice 8) For theoretically She's/He's much more than that.

"God is a being whom no greater being can be concieved" -some philosopher
 
But couldn't one say that you're failing to do justice to the concept of the universe?

re: the quote:

Ironically enough, that's the definition of God used in the "ontological proof" for his existence, one of the 'proofs' that's most easily shown fallacious. . .

ebola
 
funny, in my book the definition of god is "not a cat."

2 points:

1- wouldn't time be meaningless in infinity? couldn't the infinite be an illusion, something like a sphere or a doughnut shape on which as one travels in one direction, they unwittingly find themselve back to where they began?

2- the use of god as a synonym for universe crosses in their common shared definition of "all that there is".
 
There's is a fault in the original question, since it creates a difference between 'being' & 'idea', or being and anything else for that matter.
 
Someone mentioned humans being created in gods image - how accurate is the translation from the original text ? Perhaps image could = imagination - however this is a complete guess as I've never looked into the translation of such text - so if we're part of gods imagination the concept of the universe = god seems sound - on that utterly speculative basis anyway :D


I'll go and do something useful now :)
 
God is...... a mathematical genius of proportions outside of the concept of our tiny little minds. His equations and conclusions are the reason for our very existence. I know not what form he takes but i do know this.. organised religion has RUINED our appreciation of God.. and for that they should burn in the hell they preach.
 
How is the Existence of the Universe Possible in the Absence of a Creative Force(God)

There is a very basic problem that I cannot get past when considering the accepted scientific model of the universe.

While cosmologists have done an amazing job at tracing the universe and its evolution, back to a point fractions of a second after its creation, they don't seem to be able to explain the actual moment of creation (and for me, that is the all important detail).

In a nutshell, this is the problem that seems impossible to get past:
One of the most basic laws of our universe is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
If one assumes that premise to be true, how did the universe come into being. Scientists love to discuss the big bang, but that does not address this question. In the big bang all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny point which then exploded and has been expanding ever since. There is no problem with that theory since it starts from a point where the matter already exists (it is just very condensed). The big bang essentially just dispersed this matter and therefore does not involve the creation of matter, just a change in its form.

However, WHERE DID ALL OF THIS MATTER COME FROM? It seems that there are only 2 possibilities.
1-There was nothingness one instant, and then all of the matter in the universe simply popped into being. The obvious problem here is that is violates the most basic law of our universe-that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

2-Matter has always existed. This seems equally problematic. The idea that there literally was not a beginning and that all the matter in the universe has always been, is literally unthinkable.

So.....how are we all here. To me, the only answer that makes any sense is the acceptance of some creative power which works above what we consider to be "the possible". Whether you want to call this God or not is irrelevant. The point is, I do not see an alternative. Essentially what Im saying is that it seems that the only way around this problem of creation is "magic".


Lastly, please don't use the "Other Universes or Previous Universes Solution". I have often heard scientists attempt to solve this problem of creation by stating that our universe and all the matter contained within it, sprang forth from the collision of previous, or other universes. While this might be true, it does not solve the problem of creation because you have just backed up another step. You still need to answer the question of, "OK, but where did all the matter from THOSE universes come from?"
Am I missing something? Does someone have a solution to all of this, or have something to add that I've somehow completely missed? -DG

.
 
daddysgone said:
2-Matter has always existed. This seems equally problematic. The idea that there literally was not a beginning and that all the matter in the universe has always been, is literally unthinkable.
Click to expand...
It is unthinkable indeed, and I see absolutely no problem with that.

A better question might be is why humans are so fond of themselves as to imagine that their tiny monkey brains are able to accommodate any information out there.
 
I believe the physical universe was created by our perception. Nothing we have 'Learned' is really true. Rather it is an invention of our minds that we apply to our own creation (the universe) in an attempt to understand what we have created.

I find it easier to believe the universe was just a bunch of chaotic, shapeless, meaningless waveforms that our consciousness organized, than to believe some almighty power created all this.
 
it's akin to attributing human attributes to pet animals . science only has the power to grind on to understanding what constituted the 'beginning'. not superstition !
 
Sykoknot said:
I believe the physical universe was created by our perception. Nothing we have 'Learned' is really true. Rather it is an invention of our minds that we apply to our own creation (the universe) in an attempt to understand what we have created.

I find it easier to believe the universe was just a bunch of chaotic, shapeless, meaningless waveforms that our consciousness organized, than to believe some almighty power created all this.
Click to expand...

But the physical universe has obviously existed LONG before we were around to perceive it. This being the case, the universe clearly does not need us to "perceive" it in order exist.-DG

Jamshyd-I agree with your point regarding our limited cognitive abilities. Just because we cannot conceive of something, that hardly means that it is not possible.

Still, regardless of whether or not we can "conceive" of such things, it still presents a problem for scientists since it violates their own laws. Perhaps it is possible for matter to be created from nothing, but if so that violates one of the main laws that humans themselves conceived.
Meaning: How can a scientist maintain that matter cannot be created or destroyed while still clinging to the notion that at some point in time there was nothing, and then a moment later there was everything? -DG
 
^ Well, I personally don't see the point of discussing further something that we admit is so much larger than us that we cannot individually conceptualize. Attempting to put it in words (or equations) is, to me, an act of arrogance.

But you guys are free to discuss this further if you want. Just stating my opinion.
 
daddygone

You are using laws of the universe, to determine undefinable states before the universe, which you can't do. Also remember time is just one of our currently palpable four dimensions, so it didn't exist before the Big Bang either.

Finally the whole matter not being created or destroyed is a little misleading and a little newtonian. Special relativity predicts something called materialization of energy which entails opposite particle pairs with a net charge of zero springing into existence and then most often colliding and canceling each other out but not always (like at the event horizon of a black hole).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top