Two paradoxes related to God

[bahman]

What is real then if all that appears to us is illusion?

This has already been answered for you previously.. here it is again.

Go back to the source: before this concept of beingness, “I Am,” arose, what was your state?

I don’t know.

That which you don’t know, that is the right state.

.

The concept of you is the illusion -not you.

.

Ultimately, you are the proof that God exists, not the other way around. For before any question about God can be put, you must be there to put it.

You can BE without a concept. But a concept cannot Be without you. (What is “seen” arises and passes away in consciousness, not the “seeing” itself. )

Hence the illusory nature of conceptual thought..let’s be clear about this. From belief to clarity.

.


.

So you are saying that my essence is real but my thought is an illusion?

[bahman]

Here we consider God as temporal and timeless. We show that we are dealing with a paradox in each case.

Temporal God: In this case God creates the universe at specific time so the universe has specific age. God however has no beginning which means that He has to exist in infinite past. This is however paradoxical because one cannot reach from infinite past to now.

Timeless God: In this case there is no time reference for which we can assign the act of creation to therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is paradoxical.

there was no time prior to BB.

Yes, that is true. BB is the beginning of time and it is the point of act of creation.

i fail to see a paradox.

Let me see if I can explain it this way: The paradox is related to the fact that God is timeless. So assigning any temporal act to Him is wrong. Here we are saying that God created the universe at BB which was long time ago. That makes our timeless God temporal.

In another way, God's act is timeless as He is. This means that there is no point of reference that we could say that God does specific thing. Absence of a reference point means that the age of universe could be anything or perhaps the act of creation is impposible.

welcome clarification of your point (I'm an athiest - so dog in the fight here).

:S

[attofishpi]

Here we consider God as temporal and timeless. We show that we are dealing with a paradox in each case.

Temporal God: In this case God creates the universe at specific time so the universe has specific age. God however has no beginning which means that He has to exist in infinite past. This is however paradoxical because one cannot reach from infinite past to now.

Where are you getting this idea that God had no beginning from?

Nothing comes of nothing. That is true because nothing is no thing. Therefore we need a first mover, God/Gods.

You state a first mover as a God, if it moves it exists and came from something therefore there is a prior cause. If it came from nothing, then its bollocks......unless.

[bahman]

Where are you getting this idea that God had no beginning from?

Nothing comes of nothing. That is true because nothing is no thing. Therefore we need a first mover, God/Gods.

You state a first mover as a God, if it moves it exists and came from something therefore there is a prior cause. If it came from nothing, then its bollocks......unless.

What I am arguing in here is that God as you notice cannot resolve the problem of beginning.

[Dontaskme]

So you are saying that my essence is real but my thought is an illusion?

Yes, essence is real. IT IS, but it has no concept it IS, and yet ''thought'' adds concept to it as an integral aspect of it's essence which arises in it as an overlay upon what already IS.......IS-ness being permanent and real, while the ''thoughts'' are temporal energies spontaneously arising and falling away, and do not in any shape or form affect or change the fundamental essence of essence which is eternally grounded and changeless. ''Thoughts'' are changing appearances within that which never changes so are therefore illusory manifestations within the real.

Although,this conceptual overlay is necessary for human consciousness because consciousness is a play of duality which is particularly unique to human consciousness where there appears to be consciousness of ''otherness'' as it identifies with the ''thought'' as being some thing other and separate from itself, ...which is an illusion, but convincing enough so that it is able to communicate conceptually to the belief that thoughts are real. In other words, the objective reality gives birth to the thinker. For without the ''thought'' there is no thinker, and without the thinker there is no thought, both thinker and thought exist as one in the same instance, they are mirror reflections of the same ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

Consciousness and the nature of reality is not in relationship with anything but it's one same self, rending 'otherness' an illusion.

There are many ways to write about this, and each delivery will seem different depending on the point of view of the visionary but the overall message is the same point, appearing to be different. One just has to see what feels right to them, the way they see it.

.

[Dontaskme]

How concept could be illusory? They reflect something in reality.

A concept is an illusion because it's a perception of the perceiver, there is only perceiving, so the perceiver cannot be what it is perceiving, the perception is purely a thought placing a thing upon no thing.

Only no thing is real. No thing is uncreated, the created is what no thing does...so the thing is a reflection of no thing, a mirage, an image of the imageless. The image is real enough because it is inseparable from what's looking at it, but what's looking can never look at what's looking because there is only looking...and this looking is reflecting itself ONLY.

Lets have a look at what it is that is reflecting upon itself ONLY...in the following quote...

“ There is a difference between awareness as reflected in consciousness and pure awareness beyond consciousness. Reflected awareness, the sense “I am aware” is the witness, while pure awareness is the essence of reality. Reflection of the sun in a drop of water is a reflection of the sun, no doubt, but not the sun itself. Between awareness reflected in consciousness as the witness and pure awareness there is a gap, which the mind cannot cross.”

Here we see the uncreated ''mind'' being the creator, therefore the ''created'' is an illusory concept appearing real. That which is created then.. cannot then become uncreated using the creator mind. In other words, the mind cuts reality into two, the creator and it's creation...and there we have duality albeit illusory since the mind is in essence Nondual....but the mind is a two way mirror, it is like a pair of scissors, it can apparently cut seamless reality in two ..but cannot make the two ...ONE AGAIN...since oneness is all there is playing the mind game of the many as it reflects itself ONLY.

.

[bahman]

So you are saying that my essence is real but my thought is an illusion?

Yes, essence is real. IT IS, but it has no concept it IS, and yet ''thought'' adds concept to it as an integral aspect of it's essence which arises in it as an overlay upon what already IS.......IS-ness being permanent and real, while the ''thoughts'' are temporal energies spontaneously arising and falling away, and do not in any shape or form affect or change the fundamental essence of essence which is eternally grounded and changeless. ''Thoughts'' are changing appearances within that which never changes so are therefore illusory manifestations within the real.

If you define real as something with essence then I agree that thought is illusion.

Although,this conceptual overlay is necessary for human consciousness because consciousness is a play of duality which is particularly unique to human consciousness where there appears to be consciousness of ''otherness'' as it identifies with the ''thought'' as being some thing other and separate from itself, ...which is an illusion, but convincing enough so that it is able to communicate conceptually to the belief that thoughts are real. In other words, the objective reality gives birth to the thinker. For without the ''thought'' there is no thinker, and without the thinker there is no thought, both thinker and thought exist as one in the same instance, they are mirror reflections of the same ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

I don't think that there is one consciousness since individuals make decisions. Separate decision needs separate mind.

[bahman]

How concept could be illusory? They reflect something in reality.

A concept is an illusion because it's a perception of the perceiver, there is only perceiving, so the perceiver cannot be what it is perceiving, the perception is purely a thought placing a thing upon no thing.

Only no thing is real. No thing is uncreated, the created is what no thing does...so the thing is a reflection of no thing, a mirage, an image of the imageless. The image is real enough because it is inseparable from what's looking at it, but what's looking can never look at what's looking because there is only looking...and this looking is reflecting itself ONLY.

Lets have a look at what it is that is reflecting upon itself ONLY...in the following quote...

“ There is a difference between awareness as reflected in consciousness and pure awareness beyond consciousness. Reflected awareness, the sense “I am aware” is the witness, while pure awareness is the essence of reality. Reflection of the sun in a drop of water is a reflection of the sun, no doubt, but not the sun itself. Between awareness reflected in consciousness as the witness and pure awareness there is a gap, which the mind cannot cross.”

Here we see the uncreated ''mind'' being the creator, therefore the ''created'' is an illusory concept appearing real. That which is created then.. cannot then become uncreated using the creator mind. In other words, the mind cuts reality into two, the creator and it's creation...and there we have duality albeit illusory since the mind is in essence Nondual....but the mind is a two way mirror, it is like a pair of scissors, it can apparently cut seamless reality in two ..but cannot make the two ...ONE AGAIN...since oneness is all there is playing the mind game of the many as it reflects itself ONLY.

.

Well, if by illusion you mean something without any essence then I agree that thoughts are illusion.

[gaffo]

Here we consider God as temporal and timeless. We show that we are dealing with a paradox in each case.

Temporal God: In this case God creates the universe at specific time so the universe has specific age. God however has no beginning which means that He has to exist in infinite past. This is however paradoxical because one cannot reach from infinite past to now.

Timeless God: In this case there is no time reference for which we can assign the act of creation to therefore the age of universe could be anything which this is paradoxical.

there was no time prior to BB.

Yes, that is true. BB is the beginning of time and it is the point of act of creation.

i fail to see a paradox.

Let me see if I can explain it this way: The paradox is related to the fact that God is timeless. So assigning any temporal act to Him is wrong. Here we are saying that God created the universe at BB which was long time ago. That makes our timeless God temporal.

In another way, God's act is timeless as He is. This means that there is no point of reference that we could say that God does specific thing. Absence of a reference point means that the age of universe could be anything or perhaps the act of creation is impposible.

welcome clarification of your point (I'm an athiest - so dog in the fight here).

:S

I guess i'm just dumb. i am BTW.

so not sure what your argument is WRT to God - or not God in thread.
i thank you for your reply to me though and welcome education per "a point".

and to be honest - forget the point of this thread or your reply.

you may make a believer of my yet . just note "work salad" does not work with me and why i loathe Saul (paul) from our NT "Bible"

[Dontaskme]

I don't think that there is one consciousness since individuals make decisions. Separate decision needs separate mind.

There is no indivual owner of a mind. There is only Mind or Consciousnesses....if we both had individual minds...where would my consciousness end and your consciousness begin?....or..where would your consciousness begin and end separate from mine?

There is no proof other than the assumption that there are individually owned separate minds...the concept that there are separate minds are illusory appearances..aka thoughts arising in consciousness from the perspective of the particular character consciousness is playing, and while that thought scenario is playing out .. there are no other thought scenarios happening at all.

All happenings are only on reflection, as nothing is happening in the immediate moment, it’s only on reflection is anything known, ie, awareness has become conscious that something has happened.. as remembered...by consciousness alone.


.

[bahman]

there was no time prior to BB.

Yes, that is true. BB is the beginning of time and it is the point of act of creation.

i fail to see a paradox.

Let me see if I can explain it this way: The paradox is related to the fact that God is timeless. So assigning any temporal act to Him is wrong. Here we are saying that God created the universe at BB which was long time ago. That makes our timeless God temporal.

In another way, God's act is timeless as He is. This means that there is no point of reference that we could say that God does specific thing. Absence of a reference point means that the age of universe could be anything or perhaps the act of creation is impposible.

welcome clarification of your point (I'm an athiest - so dog in the fight here).

:S

I guess i'm just dumb. i am BTW.

so not sure what your argument is WRT to God - or not God in thread.
i thank you for your reply to me though and welcome education per "a point".

and to be honest - forget the point of this thread or your reply.

you may make a believer of my yet . just note "work salad" does not work with me and why i loathe Saul (paul) from our NT "Bible"

I don't think that you are dumb. It is alright if you forgot the point of this thread.

[bahman]

I don't think that there is one consciousness since individuals make decisions. Separate decision needs separate mind.

There is no indivual owner of a mind. There is only Mind or Consciousnesses...

Your decision and experiences are personal therefore you have your individual mind.

if we both had individual minds...where would my consciousness end and your consciousness begin?...or..where would your consciousness begin and end separate from mine?

I think we are minds and have access to different parts of Qualia. I am however puzzled that how spaceless and timeless mind could have local experience in space and time.

There is no proof other than the assumption that there are individually owned separate minds...the concept that there are separate minds are illusory appearances..aka thoughts arising in consciousness from the perspective of the particular character consciousness is playing, and while that thought scenario is playing out .. there are no other thought scenarios happening at all.

Do you have a proof to show otherwise? How Mind can make different decisions and not being aware that It is making different decisions. Instead decisions are personal which shows that there are individual minds.

[Dontaskme]

Do you have a proof to show otherwise? How Mind can make different decisions and not being aware that It is making different decisions. Instead decisions are personal which shows that there are individual minds.

No proof of other consciousnesses....only your own. There is an assumption that because you are conscious, others are too, but there is no proof of consciousness other than the self evident consciousness that is you only.

To assume other consciousnesses exist separate from your own is an idea, it’s a thought appearing in consciousness only.

We’ve already established that “thoughts” are illusory manifestations within consciousness.

If you insist there are separate consciousnesses...then the onus in on you now to show where my consciousness ends and yours begins?...which you haven’t addressed yet?

.

[bahman]

Do you have a proof to show otherwise? How Mind can make different decisions and not being aware that It is making different decisions. Instead decisions are personal which shows that there are individual minds.

No proof of other consciousnesses....only your own. There is an assumption that because you are conscious, others are too, but there is no proof of consciousness other than the self evident consciousness that is you only.

To assume other consciousnesses exist separate from your own is an idea, it’s a thought appearing in consciousness only.

We’ve already established that “thoughts” are illusory manifestations within consciousness.

If you insist there are separate consciousnesses...then the onus in on you now to show where my consciousness ends and yours begins?...which you haven’t addressed yet?

.

Let's give this a try:

1) Mind makes all decisions
2) This means that Mind has to be aware of all decisions
3) Decision is personal (we are not aware of all decisions)
4) (2) and (3) contradict with each other
5) Therefore (1) is wrong.

[Dontaskme]

Do you have a proof to show otherwise? How Mind can make different decisions and not being aware that It is making different decisions. Instead decisions are personal which shows that there are individual minds.

No proof of other consciousnesses....only your own. There is an assumption that because you are conscious, others are too, but there is no proof of consciousness other than the self evident consciousness that is you only.

To assume other consciousnesses exist separate from your own is an idea, it’s a thought appearing in consciousness only.

We’ve already established that “thoughts” are illusory manifestations within consciousness.

If you insist there are separate consciousnesses...then the onus in on you now to show where my consciousness ends and yours begins?...which you haven’t addressed yet?

.

Let's give this a try:

1) Mind makes all decisions
2) This means that Mind has to be aware of all decisions
3) Decision is personal (we are not aware of all decisions)
4) (2) and (3) contradict with each other
5) Therefore (1) is wrong.

The mind is not aware of anything, that’s the apparent paradox when mind claims it is the doer.The mind is the “known”...not the knower.

There is awareness of mind activity, mind is the “I thought” the embodied living sense of identity, but it’s illusory, it’s an appearance of awareness which is not a thing, but is aware of all things..aka concepts as and when they arise in it.

There really is no paradox...except as an illusory conception, aka a mental construction arising in awareness.

.

.