Imperefct God

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dubious wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:10 pm
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:31 pm
Dubious wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:29 am What is an absolute mind anyway? How does it manifest itself? Was there ever a record of humans having encountered one. More likely is the very high probability that absolute mind is absolute rubbish!
I happen to think that some type of cosmic or universal mind exists, but it is accessed via telepathy.

I have claimed to finding it the one time.

Few believe that telepathy is a real phenomenon as no evidence is ever left to look at.

I do have the testimony from a human I mentally touched though. If I did not have that, I would perhaps think that I had mind fart and would not believe.

Regards
DL
If I think of telepathy at all, it would be as a form of thought collusion. That is coincidences that lead to "are you thinking what I'm thinking" situations. Actual overt cases of telepathy have never been proven, and we certainly haven't yet mastered the Spock mind-meld technique.
True that the evidence and proof disappears instantly and may not be recordable, but telepathy has proven itself to those who have used it and have another to confirm it.

You are incorrect on collusion. Nothing nasty is involved.

Spock would be pleased that we at least know of bio-feedback and other noetic sciences.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Greatest I am »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:35 am Greatest I Am wrote:
I do not think we are using the same definition for mind and consciousness if you are attributing such terms to inanimate things.
Probably not. I am not even using the same definition of mind and consciousness that I myself previously used. Only recently I have been seriously thinking about panpsychism with idealism.
In the description.
"the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe."

Nonsense.

Regards
DL
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Belinda »

Greatest I am wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:07 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:35 am Greatest I Am wrote:
I do not think we are using the same definition for mind and consciousness if you are attributing such terms to inanimate things.
Probably not. I am not even using the same definition of mind and consciousness that I myself previously used. Only recently I have been seriously thinking about panpsychism with idealism.
In the description.
"the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe."

Nonsense.

Regards
DL
Then you are either a robot, or Greatest I Am is the only, solipsistic, mind in existence.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Greatest I am »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:18 am
Greatest I am wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:07 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:35 am Greatest I Am wrote:



Probably not. I am not even using the same definition of mind and consciousness that I myself previously used. Only recently I have been seriously thinking about panpsychism with idealism.
In the description.
"the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe."

Nonsense.

Regards
DL
Then you are either a robot, or Greatest I Am is the only, solipsistic, mind in existence.
Of course I am selfish. I cannot brake my natural instincts.

Do you not have the main gene and or DNA that controls you?

If not, what drives you to be the fittest?

As to the statement in question.

No proof.

Regards
DL
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Belinda »

Greatest I am wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:09 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:18 am
Greatest I am wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:07 pm

In the description.
"the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe."

Nonsense.

Regards
DL
Then you are either a robot, or Greatest I Am is the only, solipsistic, mind in existence.
Of course I am selfish. I cannot brake my natural instincts.

Do you not have the main gene and or DNA that controls you?

If not, what drives you to be the fittest?

As to the statement in question.

No proof.

Regards
DL
My forbears are the cause of my fit DNA. I had forbears who lived long enough to reproduce. My mind includes that which allows me to make that claim, and which is the experience of my body.
Similarly with you unless, as I said, you are mindless robot or big solipsistic one and only one-mind.

Solipsism has only a superficial and meaningless resemblance to selfishness.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by gaffo »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:21 am
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:25 am Let IC have his belief,
gaffo wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:07 pm concur, its not malevalent.
While I have absolutely no idea who IC is. His claims are kind of grim. Judgement day/ or lake of fire for non-believers and blasphemers. Hmm, ok, his beliefs are his prerogative, since their source is where the belief is.

If his claim were real and absolutely irrefutably true... then what I want to know is where did he get such absolute knowledge of God??...I want to know who informed him the irrefutable truth that God is?

So far, he has not ponied-up the answer to this question...so I have no other alternate but to call him out on his bluff tactic.
Until he can answer the question ''who informed him of God'' he's just like every other talking animal, full of make-believe.

.
ones is was one does - not as one says tehy do. o what one beleives is irrelevat to me - only what they do. as they say per actions vs words.

IC's actions per this forum show character - so if he is a fundie, then he only limits his blleifs more than his actual actions.

just as there are plenty of "open minded" no funides that do not lift afinder to help others if others do not witnes it - there are also many fundis - be they Chrsitian/Muslim for Hindu - etc..that limit thieer beleifs per thier book - but act right - and lift that same fingr to help others - even when others are not witnes to it. so charcter (conduct) ovr bliefs in all cases imo.


IC is willfully blind - he has to be - for the bible does no service toward the dead - it says if you die not saved you canot be saved afterlife even if you ar in te afterlife of Hell!!!!!!!! (this is morally repugnant to me - but i'm not a Fundie - so i can say "Well the bible is limited and wrong here (The book the Apocalipse of P{eter refers to this topic - but it never got included in the coanon - so though clos - not in so ignored! by fundies.


so you ,i an dIC are all good folks,he just limits himself by his book and excuses the inexcusable - not salvation from Hell for t 50 billion sinc 2 mill BC of all mankinds - while i have a problem with it. Hehas the same [prob with it - its morally repugnant to refuse salvaton from hell if onw repents - only he has the "book" to self cover is conscince and in some soprt of convoluted way tris to excuse why we in hell never get saved since God is one of Love - etc blah blah bal. -unlike him, me - not a christian - se the bible as generally good - but not as good as it would have been if it included the apocalypse of Peter. so a book that is not perfect - just a goodish book like 100's of others - but that is not IC view - his is its te only perfect and good book with no errors and nothing left out - so it (his mindest) - demands that all in hell never be saved - whether they repent or not!!!!! -which is an immoral view.

to my mind - - if i beleived in an afterlife (which o fcourse i do not) - i se no need to wall off salvation after dath. if God's love is infinate as well as mercy and repentance then Hell and all those in it in the afterlife have full acess to God's Love and repentance and salvation - assuming God is Love - of cours.

bu maybe God's "love" is finaite and salvation is only for the laliv - no the living dead - if so then take it ups with IC or God - not me i'm just a damub Athiest.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by gaffo »

sort of off topic - but he and i have rad the NT - and always wished to talk about how Gosp of Luke difers per role of Satan and Chrsit - where Luke is the one outside of the 3 other gospels - but he -IC just has no interest in talking about confraditions - dogmas that do not confomr ove rthe whole "bible".


I'll spell it out - only Luke implies chrsit did not need to di - ad that Satan killed im, and his daddy rose him from the cros to show power over the dvil.

Mark and Matt implid christ had to die per Gods Plan (via luke Christ dying was Satans plan! and later the resurection via the same plan (Gods - where via luke death of christ was satans plan and the latter ressuraction was god's plan - not so in the mark/matt - all was god's plan).

none of this is rocket science - all you have to do is rad the work - and nly think of that owrk - not othr works outside of it - then get an outline o fthe theme the author wished to impart.

"bible" 50 authors over 1100 yrs wit at least 8 "religions" - early OT works were polytheistic! - so 70 Gods for the 70 Nations - YHWH ws just one go fo rthe god of Irsael!, etc.......
let alone the nature of christ - where he is just a man born from a normal woman via impregnation by a man - Mark, then adopted by YHWH was his "son" 30 yrs later

verses being born via impregnation by god via a virgin woman - matt/luke

to nver being born - evern but exiting since foreever with God and as god - john.


but IC has no interest in talking about this differences of theology within his "bible"no interest is seein gthem nor discussing them.

sadly - i love that type of stuff -and i know he's read his bibl - so know his stuff - too many nonbelivers have not actually read the bible so they do not know enough to disscuse - and so they do not offer me discussion either!
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Greatest I am »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:15 am
Greatest I am wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:09 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:18 am

Then you are either a robot, or Greatest I Am is the only, solipsistic, mind in existence.
Of course I am selfish. I cannot brake my natural instincts.

Do you not have the main gene and or DNA that controls you?

If not, what drives you to be the fittest?

As to the statement in question.

No proof.

Regards
DL
My forbears are the cause of my fit DNA.
True. They began your journey to showing fitness.

You have to do your part to maintain and show your fitness.

If your synonym was too far away from accuracy, perhaps you should find another.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:38 pm but firs tyou have to admit them into your camp
No, I can't "admit" them. I am not the doorkeeper. I have no say.

Only Christ has a say. And He tells us very clearly that they are not His.

So that's that.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:19 pm
gaffo wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:38 pm but firs tyou have to admit them into your camp
No, I can't "admit" them. I am not the doorkeeper. I have no say.

Only Christ has a say. And He tells us very clearly that they are not His.

So that's that.
But if Christ is God , and each person is the hands and voice of God (Teresa Of Avila) then each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:44 am ...each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.
That's true, of course. But it doesn't imply that "each God-fearing person" IS God, as Pantheism would require. In fact, that suggestion implies the opposite: that man is NOT God, and so has to "fear" (or better, "reverence") and then act so as to "imitate" that which he/she is essentially not, so as to become what he/she should be but is not.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:38 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:44 am ...each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.
That's true, of course. But it doesn't imply that "each God-fearing person" IS God, as Pantheism would require. In fact, that suggestion implies the opposite: that man is NOT God, and so has to "fear" (or better, "reverence") and then act so as to "imitate" that which he/she is essentially not, so as to become what he/she should be but is not.
You sure are down on pantheism! If you read Spinoza's Ethics, or a good commentary( Hampshire or Damasio) you would see how people say Spinoza is God-obsessed.

Each God-fearing person is not God but is one of God-or Nature's creations. No creature is not a creature of God-or-Nature. I think that is the problem you have with pantheism, that your God judges his creatures and condemns some of them whereas God-or-Nature of pantheists accepts the whole of his creation with unlimited mercy, a principle well illustrated by Jesus on the Cross who said "Father forgive them as they know not what they do".
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:38 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:44 am ...each God-fearing person should try to imitate God's mercy and understanding.
That's true, of course. But it doesn't imply that "each God-fearing person" IS God, as Pantheism would require. In fact, that suggestion implies the opposite: that man is NOT God, and so has to "fear" (or better, "reverence") and then act so as to "imitate" that which he/she is essentially not, so as to become what he/she should be but is not.
You sure are down on pantheism!
I'm only pointing out what thinking Pantheists already know, not adding something they don't.

This is why, for example, Hinduism or Buddhism have recourse to the idea of reincarnation. Without an eternal cycle of "being," to which the Divine is the contrast, there would be nothing at all. So in their views, the Divine and the realm of "being" have to be co-eternal. There can be no end to samsara (to suffering, that is); something must always "be" and "suffer" in distinction to the Divine.

So you can see they know the problem. But their proposed "solution" doesn't actually work -- either logically or, ultimately, scientifically.
Each God-fearing person is not God but is one of God-or Nature's creations.
That's the distinction Christians make.

God is not the Creation. The Creation is the thing God has created, and created ex nihilo. It is not Him.
I think that is the problem you have with pantheism
You're mistaken.

I don't "have a problem with Pantheism." Pantheism has its own problem, one it recognizes, but also fails to solve.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
God is not the Creation. The Creation is the thing God has created, and created ex nihilo. It is not Him.
Bingo ! The ex nihilo is the problem of traditional Xianity for me and others like me. I must look up the history of the ex nihilo.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Imperefct God

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:27 pm The ex nihilo is the problem of traditional Xianity for me and others like me. I must look up the history of the ex nihilo.
Well, you only have two possibilities.

One is that the natural world is eternal...because it was created from something, which was created from something, which was created from something...and so on, forever. But the problems with that suggestion are so massive as to be insurmountable; because if there always has to be "something before" everything else, then there is an infinite regress of required causes -- which means that the natural world never gets started at all.

That's mathematical and certain. It's not something that depends on anybody's opinion. An infinite regress of causes never can start, because the starting point is lost in the infinite regress of the past. There never can be a "starting point" at all. And hence, there can never be a "today" either.

But there is a "today." So the universe is not the result of an infinite chain of causes. Period. QED. End of story.

There is only one other possibility: that the universe HAS a starting point, which means it was created out of nothing -- since positing any prior cause to that point subjects us to an infinite regress of prior causes again.

The upshot is that we have to arrive at an eternal entity of some kind causing things to exist. And those things have to have been made out of something that did not exist causally. There's no other possibility.

So we know that ex nihilo has to be right.
Post Reply