Let's talk about GOD!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by attofishpi » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:33 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:00 am
Where has this 'triune' been observed in physics?
You are imagining a God who is beneath the physical laws He Himself invented?
What do you mean by 'He'?

What do you mean by 'beneath'?

Immanuel Can wrote: What you've got in mind is clearly less than "God," analytically. Instead, you've got a comprehensive Physicalism in mind, obviously.
I am being analytical of EVERYTHING that I have experienced of this 'God', and yes that includes people such as fundamentalists.

Please keep your responses succinct - I don't deal with waffle too well, it makes my stomach churn.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6028
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:43 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:34 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:33 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:00 am
Where has this 'triune' been observed in physics?
You are imagining a God who is beneath the physical laws He Himself invented?
What do you mean by 'beneath'?
I mean that if God were subject to physics...if He were composed of elements that simply follow the basic Material principles of the universe...then what you would have would not be God. Instead, those Material rules, being more powerful and sovereign over Him, would be the true meaning of "God," and God would be a created, material, physical being.

And if you could subject God to physics, that would not be a good evidence for his identity as God. In fact, it would be evidence that whatever entity we were talking about could not possibly be "God" at all.

To be succinct: the test you've chosen isn't a good one. It would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by attofishpi » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:43 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:34 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:33 pm

You are imagining a God who is beneath the physical laws He Himself invented?
What do you mean by 'beneath'?
I mean that if God were subject to physics...if He were composed of elements that simply follow the basic Material principles of the universe...then what you would have would not be God. Instead, those Material rules, being more powerful and sovereign over Him, would be the true meaning of "God," and God would be a created, material, physical being.

And if you could subject God to physics, that would not be a good evidence for his identity as God. In fact, it would be evidence that whatever entity we were talking about could not possibly be "God" at all.

To be succinct: the test you've chosen isn't a good one. It would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.
Nah. In the least, you haven't identified why you state 'He'.

In the most you haven't identified wherein this 'triune' exists, as you stated, you have proof of its existence.. You are contradicting yourself - on the one hand you want to insist 'God' is beyond physics, and on the other hand you insist you have proof!

Proof requires verifiable comprehension of the 'physical'.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6028
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:00 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:43 pm
To be succinct: the test you've chosen isn't a good one. It would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.
Nah. In the least, you haven't identified why you state 'He'.
Deliberately so, because this thread was started by DAM, with the intention to move to a different question than the one about gender. The other thread addresses this issue, and I've already put a lot on there. Feel free to nip over and see. (You'll also find DAM's decision to move away from the gender issue there...I'm telling you the truth, you will see.)

So the answer is there, but here, DAM deliberately chose to move the conversation to other matters. I'm respecting that.
In the most you haven't identified wherein this 'triune' exists, as you stated, you have proof of its existence.
I asked you for what you would accept as proof. You told me that if there were "physical" demonstrations of this fact, then you would accept it.

But I pointed out that making God out to be "physical" makes Him less than God. So your test wasn't well-chosen...it would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.

And that's where we are.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Age » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 am
Age wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:17 pm

If some one wants to start a thread with the title; Let's talk about GOD!!, why then start saying things like; "God is ineffable", and, "Why would you want another person to provide proof of God"?
I never said I wanted another person to provide proof of God. Where have I stated that?
You completely misunderstood what I said and meant.

I KNOW you never said that you wanted another person to provide proof of God.

I was just asking you that if you start a thread, especially titled, Let's talk about GOD, then why would you question "another", just for asking "others" to provide proof of the God that they BELIEVE in? Does this make it more clearer?
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 am
All I've stated is the word itself is the proof. The person doesn't have the proof, the person is a word and the word is proof, self-evidently.
Yes I KNOW that this is what you have stated.
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 am
This thread's purpose is to talk about 'God the ineffable' by using words. And yes of course that sounds senseless talking about what cannot be expressed in words by using words, but words are all we've got and that's why there is a verse in the bible that reads: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Yes, and there is a VERY SPECIFIC reason for this.
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 am
God is an idea within consciousness. Ideas are expressed using words that are unique to the consciousness that is manifesting as a human mind. That's what this talk is about, it's about God talk based on ideas expressed as and through mentation heards as words aka concepts known..
If this thread is about 'God talk', then there is NO human mind. So, there are NO ideas manifesting as a human mind.
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 am
Age wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:17 pm
If we WANT to talk about 'God', then why not let us talk about what IS 'God'?
That's just one preference, I suppose.
Again, the purpose of this thread is to talk about God...it doesn't matter how God is defined or talked about, as nothing is rejected or limited to just one ideal.

?

As far as I know so far, God is what is being talked about for those contributing to this thread, including you.

.
But you were just 'trying to' reject or limit what I am saying, by saying: "God is ineffable", and, "Why would you want another person to provide proof of God"

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by attofishpi » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:00 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:43 pm
To be succinct: the test you've chosen isn't a good one. It would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.
Nah. In the least, you haven't identified why you state 'He'.
Deliberately so, because this thread was started by DAM, with the intention to move to a different question than the one about gender. The other thread addresses this issue, and I've already put a lot on there. Feel free to nip over and see. (You'll also find DAM's decision to move away from the gender issue there...I'm telling you the truth, you will see.)

So the answer is there, but here, DAM deliberately chose to move the conversation to other matters. I'm respecting that.
I wasn't quizzing so much about the gender, moreso that if something you believe created the universe - do you believe it was a MAN?

You'd have to admit, that is ridiculous...surely..

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:00 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:53 pm
In the most you haven't identified wherein this 'triune' exists, as you stated, you have proof of its existence.
I asked you for what you would accept as proof. You told me that if there were "physical" demonstrations of this fact, then you would accept it.

But I pointed out that making God out to be "physical" makes Him less than God. So your test wasn't well-chosen...it would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.

And that's where we are.
The opposite of what exactly? I like to deal with what I know from my own personal empirical evidence of this 'God' entity, and what scientists are comprehending.

So the planck scale is our (human) limit?

Personally, that's how I see things - our reality has its boundary, the God\'God' generates this reality BENEATH that scale - yes?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4778
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"do you believe it was a MAN?"

Post by henry quirk » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:25 pm

More accurately: do you believe it was masculine?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: "do you believe it was a MAN?"

Post by attofishpi » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:28 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:25 pm
More accurately: do you believe it was masculine?
Nah - it created rainbows.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Age » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:37 am
Age wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:17 pm

If some wants to just express their BELIEF that some ineffable 'thing' exists, then so be it. But I, for one, would wonder; How would they, themselves, KNOW some thing exists if they, themselves, can not even express nor describe in words what that thing actually is?
Listen, we've been through this many times before, that which knows thing is not a thing. Do you not get that?
What I get IS, this is YOUR BELIEF, which is NOT necessarily absolutely thee Truth of things. Do you get this?

IF I KNOW what KNOWS things, then I do KNOW. Therefore, your claim that what I KNOW is 'not a thing' is just plain WRONG, to me. Did you hear this?
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:37 am
I've repeated this to you many times before that it is not a ''someone'' that knows. You are the 'knowing' that cannot be known.
You have NEVER, if I recall correctly, EVER used the word "someone" before. But I have heard you many times before say that it is 'not a thing' that knows things. And, I have told you many times before that I KNOW what the 'KNOWING' IS.

Just because you BELIEF that 'IT' can not be known, does NOT meant that this IS thee Truth of things.

You are basing your own ALREADY held BELIEF, on the ASSUMPTION that just because i have NOT worked some thing out AND thus do not YET know some thing, then "IT' can not EVER be KNOWN.

Well I am HERE NOW to tell you that thee actual Truth IS what you say can not be known CAN and actually IS ALREADY KNOWN. Okay?
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:37 am
A 'someone' lets call it a person is a concept KNOWN. It is not-known how a concept is KNOWN, for the KNOWN know nothing.

Do you see?

.
I had SEEN that BEFORE 'I' even had my first discussion with 'you'.

Why you would even start to ASSUME that 'IT' is a 'someone/person' that is the KNOWING? I have said countless times ALREADY, that to ASSUME any thing prevents some one/people from SEEING the actual Truth of things.

If 'you' had EVER been curious, and ask some Truly OPEN clarifying questions to me, then you would ALREADY KNOW that what I say I KNOW, which you say can not EVER be known, is NOT a "someone/person" at all.

I have ALREADY, from about the second, third, or fourth discussion with you, explained that what you are saying is correct from a certain perspective, but it is NOT the actual Truth of things. And, asked you if you would like some help in just finding the right language I could help you in PROVING what you are saying. You rejected and refused any help.

It does not matter how many times you say "some thing can not be known". If I ALREADY KNOW 'what' that 'not a thing' IS, then I ALREADY KNOW.

How can you be so SURE that forever more that 'not a thing' can not be KNOWN?

If the Universe IS evolving, with Consciousness, then Awareness of things also evolves, correct?

Do you think that Infinity is not quite enough time for Consciousness to evolve to a point of complete Self-Awareness. If Consciousness, the Knower, the Knowing, or Awareness Itself can keep evolving, then become Truly Aware or FULLY Self-Conscious of Its own Self, then is also POSSIBLE, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, just because 'you', "dontaskme", do not know YET know how a concept is KNOWN, this does NOT mean that the KNOWN know nothing.

If there IS a Knower, which knows EVERY thing, then that Knower IS also KNOWN, so the KNOWN would KNOW EVERY thing.

IF there IS a knower of ALL things, or ALL-THERE-IS, then that It also would be the Knower and the KNOWN of Its own Self.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Age » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:41 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:42 am
Age wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:22 pm

Yes I AM maybe the irrefutable truth. But, then we are back to that old question; 'Who am 'I'?'
Only you the one who aks the question can answer that.
And IF ALL the 'you' come up with the EXACT SAME answer, then what could that infer?

Could that mean that there is One True Self?
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:42 am
Age wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:22 pm
When the proper and correct answer to this question is discovered or learned, then ALL of the rest that is said to be ineffable, in the days of when this is written, just fall into place so much easier.
So answer your own question, by asking yourself what is the proper and correct answer to my own question?

.
I have answered that ALREADY, quite some time ago now.

This Answer is what helped me in being able to KNOW what the actual Truth of things ARE.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pm

I was just asking you that if you start a thread, especially titled, Let's talk about GOD, then why would you question "another", just for asking "others" to provide proof of the God that they BELIEVE in? Does this make it more clearer?
When did I question another just for asking others to provide proof of the God that they BELIEVE in?
So it's like when I'm talking to Age sometimes is when I start to get totally lost in translation when conversing with you.
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 am
God is an idea within consciousness. Ideas are expressed using words that are unique to the consciousness that is manifesting as a human mind. That's what this talk is about, it's about God talk based on ideas expressed as and through mentation heards as words aka concepts known..
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pm
If this thread is about 'God talk', then there is NO human mind. So, there are NO ideas manifesting as a human mind.
Ok then...if you say so, then so be it, you said..''there is NO human mind. So, there are NO ideas manifesting as a human mind'')....ok then so what, all I can say in response is ok if you say so, but that doesn't change the God talk thread does it, this thread is still God talk no matter what is said here, as I've stated in the OP nothing is excluded or rejected.
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pm
But you were just 'trying to' reject or limit what I am saying, by saying: "God is ineffable", and, "Why would you want another person to provide proof of God"
But I don't want another person to provide proof of God.
Also, I wasn't rejecting or limiting anything you were saying about God by saying God is ineffable. You only thought I was doing that, but I'm telling you, I was not.

If God to you is not ineffable then that's fine by me, I have no argument with that.

But for me, knowing God which I do... is a bit like eating an orange or falling in love with someone. I can't put what those two feelings and knowings into words for someone else to experience. I can only feel and know what it's like asmy own direct experience...or even if I did try to put the feeling and knowing into words,...that may take many words that may be interpreted differently and mean different things to other people.

And that's what I'm getting at here.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pm

How can you be so SURE that forever more that 'not a thing' can not be KNOWN?
Because THINGS are KNOWN....and known things can't know they are known.
Not-a-thing is only known in relation to a thing known. Not-a-thing and thing are one knowing in the instant...is that too complicated to grasp?

Now read what I've just written 3 hundred times until it sinks in that ( not-a-thing) cannot be known...only things can be known, and things can't know that they are known because they are already being known by not-a-thing.
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pm
Also, just because 'you', "dontaskme", do not know YET know how a concept is KNOWN, this does NOT mean that the KNOWN know nothing.
Then explain to DAM, tell or show her what does a concept KNOWN know?
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pm
If there IS a Knower, which knows EVERY thing, then that Knower IS also KNOWN, so the KNOWN would KNOW EVERY thing.
The knower is known by the knower - so yes every thing is KNOWN by the knower...HOWEVER, the known doesn't know ANYTHING, because the known is already known by the knower that knows everything.
What I mean is... a coffee cup is known...but it's not the coffee cup that knows it's coffee cup..the coffee cup is just a concept known to the knower...The knower is no thing knowing thing...do you see?
Age wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pm
IF there IS a knower of ALL things, or ALL-THERE-IS, then that It also would be the Knower and the KNOWN of Its own Self.
Yes, agreed. Knower/knowing/ known are all ONE.

.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6028
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:00 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:10 pm
...do you believe it was a MAN?
I can only invite you to read the other thread, and comment there, if you wish. You'll see what I believe there, at some length. And if there's anything left unsaid, I'm happy to address it.

But I'm being respectful to DAM's purposes here. The gender issue is for there.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:00 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:53 pm
In the most you haven't identified wherein this 'triune' exists, as you stated, you have proof of its existence.
I asked you for what you would accept as proof. You told me that if there were "physical" demonstrations of this fact, then you would accept it.

But I pointed out that making God out to be "physical" makes Him less than God. So your test wasn't well-chosen...it would actually show the opposite of what you think it would.

And that's where we are.
The opposite of what exactly?
If God were merely and object of physical laws, it would mean decisively that He was not God. So your proof would be a disproof.

Now, I did ask what evidence you would accept...and you answered as you saw fit. Fair enough. But perhaps I should have added the word "rationally-consistent" to that. With your permission, I will now. A "proof" which merely logically disproves obviously will not do.

Again, then, what would you accept as (rationally-consistent) evidence?
'God' generates this reality BENEATH that scale - yes?
"Beneath" can be a misunderstood word. I wouldn't put it that way. God is not "beneath" the physical laws of the universe, in the sense of being lower than or liable to them. He might be said to be "beneath" in the sense of founding, undergirding or sustaining. But you haven't said which you mean.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: "do you believe it was a MAN?"

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:46 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:25 pm
More accurately: do you believe it was masculine?
It depends which eye ( I ) you are looking from. Is the two eyes or one eyed HE-man king?

The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same - one in seeing, one in knowing, one in loving.
~Meister Eckhart

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Let's talk about GOD!!

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:00 pm

But I'm being respectful to DAM's purposes here. The gender issue is for there.
Thanks for respecting. If the issue arises which it has, then it's ok to address the issue as nothing is rejected here, and I'm pretty sure the issue will pass soon enough, once addressed. :D

I can't even begin to understand why it would be an issue at all even if God is a HE..why would that even have an impact on anything. I mean every human child knows their Father to be a HE...so would/could/should that knowledge impact the child? ...I doubt it, it's just a silly notion to me, and not worth discussing over really.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests