A Simple Theory for God

[Greta]

PS. First counter attack is done. Learn respect or suffer me chasing your posts around the board with no respite

Respect is earned not an automatic given.

I don't have respect issues with most others here - in either direction.

I do have problems with "illusion claims". Just an easy dismissal. In what way is the self illusory? It certainly doesn't seem to be because selves are interacting all the time. Do you think all non material things are illusory, so the self is non existent because it can't be tasted, touched or measured? What is the process involved in this alleged illusion of the self? Proclaiming that something is illusory without relevant explanatory detail just muddies issues and distracts from the attempt to better understand aspects of reality.

[Walker]

What part of ineffable do you not understand.

Then why are you saying anything about it at all? Why does it only become ineffable when you don't want to explain your claims?

Some care and consideration has already gone into the explanation of all questions you have mustered. It is incumbent upon you to exhibit some comprehension of content, and demands don't count in the thought realm of dualistic contemplation. You have much to draw upon for positive response to a topic that is of your interest. No rush. Take your time. I would like for you to surprise yourself, and then share that.

[Dontaskme]

PS. First counter attack is done. Learn respect or suffer me chasing your posts around the board with no respite

Respect is earned not an automatic given.

I don't have respect issues with most others here - in either direction.

I do have problems with "illusion claims". Just an easy dismissal. In what way is the self illusory? It certainly doesn't seem to be because selves are interacting all the time. Do you think all non material things are illusory, so the self is non existent because it can't be tasted, touched or measured? What is the process involved in this alleged illusion of the self? Proclaiming that something is illusory without relevant explanatory detail just muddies issues and distracts from the attempt to better understand aspects of reality.

Does a Dog need to explain anything in order to understand aspects of reality? What is this self you are talking about? Does a Dog have a self? Does a tree have a self?
There is a resonance to what's being talked about in the nondual message, shown via words the only medium available, this is not about getting anything from it, nonduality is not going to give you anything other than what you already are. So all we are doing is walking each other home symbolically via language. We all know this nondual message instinctively - we're just listening and talking to ourself...but it's mainly about listening, not talking because words tend to do the opposite of what we are attempting to understand, they divide what cannot be divided, but if we are listening ..we can know all our answers in just one question.

A Dog will not question it's reality...The illusion is that there is no Dog there to question reality, there's just ''no thing' aka formlessness aka 'everything' appearing as the form shape and conceptual meaning Dog. Dog is God and God is Dog. It's the quantum nature of reality. There is nothing to explain or understand, there's just beingness which is all YOU including the Dog. The Dog is not out there and you in here, the Dog is appearing in you inseparable from you. It's all YOU. What is there to further to understand about the quantum nature of YOU?

You are not what you think you are. There is no you because there is no other than you. Is that hard to understand? Let's assume everything starts with an atom, so if that's true then everything else must be that same atom appearing holographic. It's no coincidence that holographic starts with the sound (hollow)..and the graphic is representation of the image seen...The quantum nature of an atom appears as a light wave and a particle in the same instant, so too the quantum nature of language appears as a sound wave and a word in the same moment. Similarly, the quantum nature of life is a moment which is timeless and thoughtless and a moment in the mind which is time-filled and thought-filled in the same instant, albeit illusory. The understanding and cementing of this quantum nature of life is enlightenment.

As understanding evolves, man understands that illusory does not mean the real in daily life does not exist. Evolved understanding indicates by logic and reasoning that the perceived real in daily life is made up of atoms, and atoms being light, it means that the real in daily life, which is believed to exist has to exist as an illusion of light and cannot have a real existence. If a self was real then it wouldn't die ...yet we cry when our loved ones die because we think that person was real.

As for your comment on interacting ....

The moment in life just is, and man is unable to make the present moment in which he is, because the moment is always there so that man could be in it. In daily life, several movements of the body happen every moment, and man is neither conscious of these movements nor do these movements appear as interactions to man. This implies that in any moment in daily life there is ONLY a movement and man does not interact in any moment of life. Therefore, interactions are illusory thoughts in the mind and not an actuality in any moment of daily life.

[Lacewing]

Some care and consideration has already gone into the explanation of all questions you have mustered.

Bullshit. The only care and consideration you put forth is in protecting your ego from the fallout of the crap you make up.

If you really wanted to engage in an honest discussion, you wouldn't spend your time being evasive and condescending. Your behavior shows what you're really about.

[Walker]

Some care and consideration has already gone into the explanation of all questions you have mustered.

Bullshit. The only care and consideration you put forth is in protecting your ego from the fallout of the crap you make up.

If you really wanted to engage in an honest discussion, you wouldn't spend your time being evasive and condescending. Your behavior shows what you're really about.

Be nice now. Think about it. If God was not ever-present, where would he go? A bungalow? Mt. Olympus?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=736&p=296018#p296018

[Lacewing]

Think about it. If God was not ever-present, where would he go?

This is your question, not mine. My question is not about presence, it's about what you think God is. You said God is specific, and all is not God. That doesn't answer what you think God is. You also didn't answer the question I put to you: "Did God create all"?

So, think about it yourself, and see if you can answer without playing any more of your evasive, distorting games.

[Walker]

Think about it. If God was not ever-present, where would he go?

This is your question, not mine. My question is not about presence, it's about what you think God is. You said God is specific, and all is not God. That doesn't answer what you think God is. You also didn't answer the question I put to you: "Did God create all"?

So, think about it yourself, and see if you can answer without playing any more of your evasive, distorting games.

Look at it this way. If you draw a circle around what you know, that’s a Venn diagram. Now here you are demanding that what you don’t know fit inside of your Venn, when the fact is, your Venn exists in relationship with another Venn, the Venn of unknowns that precede all those question marks, like dark matter and energy surrounding and permeating the Venn of the known universe, since the concept of nothing doesn’t seem to work in scientific models. Does it? As if anyone could even conceive of nothing.

“Instead of searching for the proof of truth, which you do not know, go through the proofs you have of what you believe to know. You will find you know nothing for sure – you trust on hearsay. To know the truth, you must pass through your own experience.”
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Lacewing]

As if anyone could even conceive of nothing.

I don't know why you keep going back to the word "nothing".

When I said "But nothing is always present... " -- in response to your claim "Only what is always present is God" -- I was suggesting that there is no thing that is always present, and/or there is nothing that is always present. I see it as an ebb and flow of tides, coming and going... no identifiable/unchanging thing is just hanging around all the time. So if you think that God is described by a "what" that is always present, I was wanting to know what that is, that is always present and constitutes God? But I don't even care anymore because you don't answer questions, you just tell your stories which seem to show that you're not really participating in a shared discussion.

[Greta]

I do have problems with "illusion claims". Just an easy dismissal. In what way is the self illusory? It certainly doesn't seem to be because selves are interacting all the time. Do you think all non material things are illusory, so the self is non existent because it can't be tasted, touched or measured? What is the process involved in this alleged illusion of the self? Proclaiming that something is illusory without relevant explanatory detail just muddies issues and distracts from the attempt to better understand aspects of reality.

Does a Dog need to explain anything in order to understand aspects of reality? What is this self you are talking about? Does a Dog have a self? Does a tree have a self?
There is a resonance to what's being talked about in the nondual message, shown via words the only medium available, this is not about getting anything from it, nonduality is not going to give you anything other than what you already are. So all we are doing is walking each other home symbolically via language. We all know this nondual message instinctively - we're just listening and talking to ourself...but it's mainly about listening, not talking because words tend to do the opposite of what we are attempting to understand, they divide what cannot be divided, but if we are listening ..we can know all our answers in just one question.

A Dog will not question it's reality...The illusion is that there is no Dog there to question reality, there's just ''no thing' aka formlessness aka 'everything' appearing as the form shape and conceptual meaning Dog. Dog is God and God is Dog. It's the quantum nature of reality. There is nothing to explain or understand, there's just beingness which is all YOU including the Dog. The Dog is not out there and you in here, the Dog is appearing in you inseparable from you. It's all YOU. What is there to further to understand about the quantum nature of YOU?

If you are a dog, then yes, you need not explain yourself. I am impressed at how well you type with your paws.

You are not what you think you are.

I agree, but I think that's as far as our agreement goes. I see individuals as composite eings, being more expressions of the prevailing society and culture than of their own individuality or familial identity. Just as other species are expressions of their environments, the human environment is culture. This dynamic is most obvious when considering the development (or lack) of children raised by other species in the wild, with some of those children apparently never achieving recognisably human cognition.

There is no you because there is no other than you. Is that hard to understand?

Our interaction makes clear that's that's not true - you are other than me and vice versa. If I am you and you are me, why do we disagree on many things?

Let's assume everything starts with an atom, so if that's true then everything else must be that same atom appearing holographic.

This is just a matter of ground states determining the potentials and limitations of future states. So the slight variations of temperature in the CMB resulted in the arrangement of galaxies today. Spores, seeds and eggs are life's "ground zero", their DNA and resource allocation/access defining the nature of subsequent emerging forms.

So, as the universe cools, that allows for fractal emergence. Emergent entities will naturally inherit characteristics from the "parent" entities.

It's no coincidence that holographic starts with the sound (hollow)

I take it you are not referring to acoustic holograms ...? http://gizmodo.com/scientists-made-beau ... 1786907747

..and the graphic is representation of the image seen...The quantum nature of an atom appears as a light wave and a particle in the same instant, so too the quantum nature of language appears as a sound wave and a word in the same moment. Similarly, the quantum nature of life is a moment which is timeless and thoughtless and a moment in the mind which is time-filled and thought-filled in the same instant, albeit illusory. The understanding and cementing of this quantum nature of life is enlightenment.

"The quantum nature of language"? Language is not just about sounds and forms, but structure and meaning.

I have some idea what you are trying to say and I don't disagree, but I think you wildly overrate the value of dialling into the present moment. I went through my "eternal now" phase (as many do) and it proved counter-productive. It's an irony of evolution and our senses that we largely seem to need to be "out of touch" with reality in order to live well and happily, with only occasional forays into something more akin to actual reality.

To perceive reality as it really 24/7 is would be akin to being utterly blinded and deafened (at least) by a cacophony of light and sound and unable to function. We are insulated by the filtering of our limited senses, which keep the environmental inputs manageable.

As understanding evolves, man understands that illusory does not mean the real in daily life does not exist.

This does not make sense.

Evolved understanding indicates by logic and reasoning that the perceived real in daily life is made up of atoms, and atoms being light, it means that the real in daily life, which is believed to exist has to exist as an illusion of light and cannot have a real existence. If a self was real then it wouldn't die ...yet we cry when our loved ones die because we think that person was real.

That's just material fundamentalism and not the reality (although imagining being made of light can be a powerful mediation tool). Obviously atoms are not just "light" (electromagnetism) but emergent forms at the boundary of what we refer to as "matter", ie. compressed and specifically ordered energy. Atoms bond to form molecules, molecules form molecular compounds, molecular compounds form cells and so forth. Each is related - as you suggest - but they are not the same.

As for your comment on interacting ....

The moment in life just is, and man is unable to make the present moment in which he is, because the moment is always there so that man could be in it. In daily life, several movements of the body happen every moment, and man is neither conscious of these movements nor do these movements appear as interactions to man. This implies that in any moment in daily life there is ONLY a movement and man does not interact in any moment of life. Therefore, interactions are illusory thoughts in the mind and not an actuality in any moment of daily life.

If you give birth to a baby, how real is that interaction? If you are mugged, how real is that interaction?

You can call all this stuff "illusions" till you are blue in the face and no one will believe you because they know it's real, with real cause and effect consequences. Ultimately, it's cause and effect that determines reality from illusions.

[Reflex]

Although I don’t believe in a god entity that exists separately and “reigns” over all of life, I have always seen ongoing and continual signs of an interconnectedness throughout all. It makes the most sense to me that the idea of “God” must include and reside in ALL equally. Why would there be anything NOT of “God”? Why would there be any “insides” and “outsides” of God -– such designations are surely the ideas of man, for man’s manipulation and self-promotion.

Therefore, I think it’s most reasonable to view any god force as inherent and equally distributed -– because, again, what ELSE is there? So if all is god, then that would point to all of us being examples of the many creative explorations and aspects of God. God playing and exploring through all of it/us. Each person reflecting a different potential to be manifested and explored: a different balance of attributes, ego, intoxication, needs, fears, courage, vision, clarity, etc.

All of this "God" potential is being expressed through many different characteristics, while being narrowly defined and judged by man’s limited and controlling vision/understanding. As parts of God argue that they are MORE of God, they demonstrate that particular manifestation of creative delusion and ego. Whereas God is actually ALL creative energy/exploration of infinite/ever-expanding potential. Nothing more sacred than anything else. ALL divine! ALL "God" -- because why would anything be excluded?

"Equally distributed" and "expressed through many different characteristics" -- you don't see the inconsistency?

[thedoc]

Although I don’t believe in a god entity that exists separately and “reigns” over all of life, I have always seen ongoing and continual signs of an interconnectedness throughout all. It makes the most sense to me that the idea of “God” must include and reside in ALL equally. Why would there be anything NOT of “God”? Why would there be any “insides” and “outsides” of God -– such designations are surely the ideas of man, for man’s manipulation and self-promotion.

Therefore, I think it’s most reasonable to view any god force as inherent and equally distributed -– because, again, what ELSE is there? So if all is god, then that would point to all of us being examples of the many creative explorations and aspects of God. God playing and exploring through all of it/us. Each person reflecting a different potential to be manifested and explored: a different balance of attributes, ego, intoxication, needs, fears, courage, vision, clarity, etc.

All of this "God" potential is being expressed through many different characteristics, while being narrowly defined and judged by man’s limited and controlling vision/understanding. As parts of God argue that they are MORE of God, they demonstrate that particular manifestation of creative delusion and ego. Whereas God is actually ALL creative energy/exploration of infinite/ever-expanding potential. Nothing more sacred than anything else. ALL divine! ALL "God" -- because why would anything be excluded?

"Equally distributed" and "expressed through many different characteristics" -- you don't see the inconsistency?

There is no inconsistency, many genes are contained in the human genome but are not expressed in the individual, so just because a person has the many characteristics of God, there is no reason to expect that all of them will be expressed in that persons nature.

[Walker]

As if anyone could even conceive of nothing.

I don't know why you keep going back to the word "nothing".

When I said "But nothing is always present... " -- in response to your claim "Only what is always present is God" -- I was suggesting that there is no thing that is always present, and/or there is nothing that is always present. I see it as an ebb and flow of tides, coming and going... no identifiable/unchanging thing is just hanging around all the time. So if you think that God is described by a "what" that is always present, I was wanting to know what that is, that is always present and constitutes God? But I don't even care anymore because you don't answer questions, you just tell your stories which seem to show that you're not really participating in a shared discussion.

Then the logic stands unrefuted. You can’t just keep kicking the tires. Eventually you gotta drive that little dreamboat.

I'm listening to everything you say.

You claim God is all. You’ve also just suggested that God is a thing.

Because God is always present, as those who know this truth through experience know, and because all cannot be present due to perceived dimensional limitations of form, then the OP assertion that God is all, is incorrect.

You have not disputed or refuted this, as you cannot answer the question of where God goes when God is not present, as a non-ever-present God would necessarily have to be now and then.

You’re just stamping your foot and demanding that what other folks know through experience fit into what you do not know through experience, because the ever-presence of God doesn’t fit into your Venn.

And here I innocently wander in to your Venn merely attempting to follow your lead in compiling a definitive characteristic list for the God you yourself have differentiated from everything by assigning a label of God that carries characteristics of your secret associations, such as this God and Creator association that you always keep referencing but not explaining, and now most recently your suggestion that God is a thing.

Now if God is all, are you trying to say that all creates All? Are you saying that All must be comprised of things? If so, we can put these dualistic characteristics on the list.

Anyway, I thought you didn’t believe in God, and here you are starting a list of God characteristics but refusing to participate in the dualistic spirit of characterizing what you yourself have established as separate from all through the act of conceptually differentiating God with the word, God.

And the reason is, you don't care. What kind of a world would this be if everyone always never cared anymore.

[Lacewing]

"Equally distributed" and "expressed through many different characteristics" -- you don't see the inconsistency?

No. Why do you see inconsistency?

[Lacewing]

Then the logic stands unrefuted.

What logic?

You can’t just keep kicking the tires. Eventually you gotta drive that little dreamboat.

This makes no sense in regard to me (just more of your stuff).

I'm listening to everything you say.

I wish you understood what I'm saying. You're responses show that you don't.

You claim God is all.

The purpose of the OP was to explore theist logic by asking: Why would there be anything NOT of “God”? And what ELSE is there than "God"? I ask this because theists so often judge what is of God and what isn't. Many theists believe that God is the creator of all, but they apparently don't believe that God is IN ALL, or that all is a reflection of God. So if God didn't create everything, WHO did -- and why would God be out-of-control of creation?

You’ve also just suggested that God is a thing.

Where? I don't even believe that.

Because God is always present, as those who know this truth through experience know, and because all cannot be present due to perceived dimensional limitations of form, then the OP assertion that God is all, is incorrect.

That seems like really narrow logic.

You have not disputed or refuted this, as you cannot answer the question of where God goes when God is not present, as a non-ever-present God would necessarily have to be now and then.

I think this convoluted scenario is absurd, and doesn't reflect anything at all that I've been talking about. So I don't know why you want me to go on your weird trip.

You’re just stamping your foot and demanding...

Oh for fuck's sake. You're so intoxicated with what you think.

Anyway, I thought you didn’t believe in God

Correct.

and here you are starting a list of God characteristics

What list, Walker? Where have I started a list? All I said in my OP was: "It makes the most sense to me that the idea of “God” must include and reside in ALL equally" -- and I explain why that makes sense to me. Then I ask why it would not be true. I am not claiming there is a god. I am questioning the idea/definition of God, as presented by most theists.

Whatever else you've concluded is coming from your own head.

[ken]

and here you are starting a list of God characteristics

What list, Walker? Where have I started a list? All I said in my OP was: "It makes the most sense to me that the idea of “God” must include and reside in ALL equally -- and I explain why that makes sense to me. Then I ask why it would not be true. I am not claiming there is a god. I am questioning the idea/definition of God, as presented by most theists.

But is not theist's idea/definition of God exactly what you are proposing also, that is, God is within everything?

That is what I heard in religion classes ever since i was very young.