An act of God

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6447
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: An act of God

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:36 pm

Harbal wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:36 pm
Actually, IC, just to show how unbiased I am, I will post another little story of mine that is much more in tune with your views. Watch out for it.
I'm living for the moment.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4063
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: An act of God

Post by Harbal » Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:36 pm
I'm living for the moment.
I think you'll love it, IC. :D

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: An act of God

Post by Lacewing » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:32 pm
What makes you think that the human concepts of "order" and "chaos" are to be applied?
What species's concepts would you like applied? If not our own concepts, then whose?
Are you evading the point on purpose...or do I truly baffle you? Rephrased: Why do "order" and "chaos" need to be applied? What is order? What is chaos? Who has created these concepts and applied them? Humans, yes? How do we really know they are fitting for that which is broader than what we can recognize/know?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Why would man’s model of reality, which is based on very limited perception and awareness, be “the model” for that which is vastly expansive beyond man’s reality?
I will happily respond...if I could figure out the meaning from the syntax. But I can't.

Can you rephrase?
Why do we superimpose the models of our limited reality/understanding onto that which we guess to be greater/beyond us? We understand we have many limitations in our perceptions and abilities, and yet we want to believe that we somehow can KNOW of gods, and of models of universal functioning, and of ultimate purpose, truth, and correctness? How could that even sound sensible?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Why would there need to be a separate identity directing everything?
An entity "separate" from what? Separate from the universe?
Yes. Why would we believe that there must be some sort of separateness?

As for cause and effect... (and as I mentioned in my other post): Why can't various flows stir and then regulate naturally, continually? Must there be some defining "start" to "anything specific", and why would that motion or whatever require an agenda? Humans have created the stories of gods and purposes. It is for their use. And yes, they do try to control with it. Humans have not always thought as we do. Some have recognized that they are a natural part of everything, and it all works together in a fantastic and beautiful unfolding, and there is reverence and appreciation for ALL OF IT. There is nothing separate.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Is it not observable that there is an energy flowing/shared throughout all, displaying no grand intentions other than creativity, exploration, and expression? Why would humans reject this non-ego potential, and superimpose a human story/model?
Answer: no, it's not observable.
Okay, perhaps not for you. It IS observable for many people. Countless studies of nature measure and describe the interconnected systems AND communications that flow energetically throughout life. I think the implications of this are more compelling than stories of gods.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Moreover, "creativity, exploration and expression" are far from "non-grand intentions": they're things only a person can do.
No, I don't think so. Nature includes these qualities boundlessly. You have to take the ego out of your perspective in order to recognize the other ways that these occur.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
I think you have the idea that in using human terms we are possibly under-describing something. And that's probably partly right.
Yes.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
But what we're doing is attempting to describe, not attempting to control, or even to "model". We are approximating the realities with the best tools we have, not trying to shape our findings beforehand.
:lol: You seriously are saying that humans do not attempt to control or model with their ideas? They're just innocently trying to "describe"? Yes, we do imagine other realities to the best of our ability, but isn't it wise to stay aware of what our limitations are, rather than concluding what we cannot?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
the alternative is blank silence.
No, we can be ever-questioning and ever-exploring. When we come to conclusions that we can't possibly know, then we have cut off our legs and closed our eyes, and we're just talking egos who cannot recognize anything to the contrary.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6447
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: An act of God

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:55 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:04 pm
Why do "order" and "chaos" need to be applied?
Because we human beings are very good at detecting order where it exists. And chaos looks quite different from order.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Can you rephrase?
Why do we superimpose the models of our limited reality/understanding onto that which we guess to be greater/beyond us?

I'm not sure that's what we do. But if we do, it would be because we use some reference point from our own experience as a starting point for understanding new things. I don't think that's at all sinister.
We understand we have many limitations in our perceptions and abilities, and yet we want to believe that we somehow can KNOW of gods, and of models of universal functioning, and of ultimate purpose, truth, and correctness? How could that even sound sensible?
It would depend. Could a human get a comprehensive concept of God? Clearly not...no more than a man could get the Pacific Ocean in a cup. But in a cup, you can still get an authentic dip from the ocean. So it still might be quite reasonable for a person to have genuine, informative contact with a concept upon which he/she could not close comprehensively.

"Universe" is the same. We don't understand the size and nature of it. Our best scientists only have estimates. But we do think we are in contact with a real concept when we say "universe." And we are in contact with our own part of the universe.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Why would there need to be a separate identity directing everything?
An entity "separate" from what? Separate from the universe?
Yes. Why would we believe that there must be some sort of separateness? [/quote]
Well, as I was saying, The Principle of Sufficient Reason. Whatever made the universe has to be sufficient to the task we posit of it. It would not only have to be of vaster dimensions, but capable of being attributed as the cause of all the order in it, and of creating us.

One thing for sure: "the universe created itself" would be circular and irrational as an explanation...like a man saying he lifted himself into the air by his own bootstraps. It's not a plausible explanation. So something beyond the physical universe would be required.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Is it not observable that there is an energy flowing/shared throughout all, displaying no grand intentions other than creativity, exploration, and expression? Why would humans reject this non-ego potential, and superimpose a human story/model?
Answer: no, it's not observable.
Okay, perhaps not for you. [/quote]
No, I mean it's not observable at all.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
Moreover, "creativity, exploration and expression" are far from "non-grand intentions": they're things only a person can do.
No, I don't think so. Nature includes these qualities boundlessly.
But I'm afraid you're begging the question there.

My suggestion would be that the universe itself isn't random, and that's why these properties exist. The contrary proposal could only be that mere randomness generated them. Which one shall we believe?

You point to "creativity, exploration and expression." These are not features of chaos. They aren't randomly produced. What we observe is that they are always associated with consciousness. We don't say that a rock or a tree is full of "creativity, exploration and expression." But they might be products of a "creative" and "expressive" Creator, one who gives us things to "explore." That's possible.

But chaos won't do that. Chaos has no order in it, by definition.
You have to take the ego out of your perspective in order to recognize the other ways that these occur.
Ego's not the motive. It would be the argument to the best explanation of the observable facts.
You seriously are saying that humans do not attempt to control or model with their ideas?

No, I'm not saying some don't. I'm saying that we don't have to, and science, at its best, is descriptive of reality, not constitutive of an alternative to reality. If it's the latter, it's propaganda.

Sure, some people do that. But not those who are honestly grappling with reality.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:07 pm
the alternative is blank silence.
No, we can be ever-questioning and ever-exploring.
One can't "question" where there is no intrinsic coherence.

You can't "explore" where there is no order. You can't "make sense" out of things that have no intrinsic possibility of sense in them. If we were in a chaotic universe, we'd be like a cosmonaut floating in a void, then: he can't tell what's relevant and what's not, what's up and what's down, what's better or worse, what's nearer or farther, what's possible and what's not. There are no reference points anymore, no possible directions, and no way to identify progress in anything.

And if that were our universe, then indeed we would be condemned to silence -- not by fiat, but by our own complete lack of reference points for stating anything.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: An act of God

Post by Lacewing » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:55 pm
...
Thanks for your response. I think we are speaking two very different languages. My attempts to show another perspective are met with being drug back into the realm you are focused on, even though I've suggested that such human-created ideas/beliefs very likely do not apply to a larger perspective.

Since our human notions of "order" and "chaos" very well DON'T apply on a grander scale than we are able to see, I don't think it makes sense for us to build so much of our conclusions based on such notions. Something that looks like chaos in the moment, often makes perfect sense when you widen the view or wait to see how it's a piece of a larger picture unfolding. We have to recognize our limits and stop superimposing our human-made noise onto everything if we want to experience more clarity and balance.

IF the Universe that we know was created by SOMETHING, why claim to know that something, and give that something a name, and project a bunch of traits and purposes onto that something? There is so much right here, right now, already within and between us, and throughout all of nature, to consider "divine" or "sacred" JUST BECAUSE it's a fantastic sensory experience of connectivity and manifestation that we are part of. What is the purpose of needing to know or identify some kind of "source"? Why would anyone think that it would be of any vibration that humans could even relate to? And how does it make any real difference in who or what we are each capable of being or doing, even if we try to pass off some kind of credit or responsibility to something we have no way of knowing? It's contrived.

It's not a problem that we try to understand and describe a bigger picture using the concepts we know -- but we create problems by believing in (and becoming addicted to) our own "firm conclusions" which are half-baked, self-serving, and skewed. By truthfully acknowledging the limits of our understanding, we can use a more flexible and questioning approach: Explorer vs. "knower".

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6447
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: An act of God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:55 pm
...
Thanks for your response.
You are welcome. Thanks for yours.
I think we are speaking two very different languages.

Possibly.
Since our human notions of "order" and "chaos" very well DON'T apply on a grander scale than we are able to see, I don't think it makes sense for us to build so much of our conclusions based on such notions.
I would need reasons to think that was so. They are very, very simple concepts, so they might well be universal.
Something that looks like chaos in the moment, often makes perfect sense when you widen the view or wait to see how it's a piece of a larger picture unfolding.

That's true. Leibniz said the same, essentially, about good and evil. We lack the big picture, and so tend to think that our local perspectives are right. But something that appears "good' for us at this moment can turn out to be quite "bad." And something that may, on the surface, appear to be nothing but an "evil" can sometimes prove to bring us good -- if not in practical outcomes, certainly in character refinement. So he thought what we would really need, if we wanted to know what to think about the amount of apparent "bad" things in the world, was a God's-eye view.
IF the Universe that we know was created by SOMETHING, why claim to know that something, and give that something a name, and project a bunch of traits and purposes onto that something?
If that's what we were doing, it would be a low-probability exercise, for sure; we'd almost certainly get it wrong. But here's the question...

Can the Supreme Being (assuming such were to exist) tell us the truth about Himself, even if we can't find it from our end? And being, by definition, the Supreme Being, He would have to be able to, wouldn't He?
It's not a problem that we try to understand and describe a bigger picture using the concepts we know -- but we create problems by believing in (and becoming addicted to) our own "firm conclusions" which are half-baked, self-serving, and skewed.
Yep. That often happens.
By truthfully acknowledging the limits of our understanding, we can use a more flexible and questioning approach: Explorer vs. "knower".
Well, the problem with being merely an "explorer" is that even explorers have a destination in mind. If they thought there was not "new world," or no "passage to India," or no "Northwest passage," they'd never have left home in the first place...and that wouldn't make them much good as explorers, would it?

Likewise the "knower." She doesn't need to seek to "know" if she already knows there's no conclusion possible. Then she's just an ignorant wanderer in a barren landscape...and again, we can forgive her for not trying very hard, if that's what she thinks she's facing.

Good thoughts. Thanks for the conversation.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: An act of God

Post by Lacewing » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am
Can the Supreme Being (assuming such were to exist) tell us the truth about Himself, even if we can't find it from our end? And being, by definition, the Supreme Being, He would have to be able to, wouldn't He?
Perhaps IF there was a "source something" that was a "being" who thought in our terms and wanted to communicate with us for some reason. Doesn't it seem obviously self-serving to imagine a "source" that is a big, unlimited version of us? How does that even possibly make sense?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am
the problem with being merely an "explorer" is that even explorers have a destination in mind.
I don't think having destinations are necessarily a problem -- rather, problems may result from being inflexibly addicted to certain destinations. And I think there are definitely different ways to "explore"... such as, you can explore through observation, watching and listening, without any agenda or destination in mind.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am
Likewise the "knower." She doesn't need to seek to "know" if she already knows there's no conclusion possible. Then she's just an ignorant wanderer in a barren landscape...and again, we can forgive her for not trying very hard, if that's what she thinks she's facing.
Why would someone be ignorant for observing and remaining open to possibilities, rather than convincing themselves of some rigid reality/truth such that they recognize nothing more? I can assure you that I'm not in anything like a barren landscape. :lol: Strange that you imagine that as being the only possible reality beyond your own? Again, seems intentionally self-serving, yes?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am
Good thoughts. Thanks for the conversation.
Agreed.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6447
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: An act of God

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 am

Lacewing wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:17 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:14 am
Can the Supreme Being (assuming such were to exist) tell us the truth about Himself, even if we can't find it from our end? And being, by definition, the Supreme Being, He would have to be able to, wouldn't He?
Perhaps IF there was a "source something" that was a "being" who thought in our terms and wanted to communicate with us for some reason.
Yeah. That's all I'm saying.
Doesn't it seem obviously self-serving to imagine a "source" that is a big, unlimited version of us? How does that even possibly make sense?
Well, if there is a God, then you'd have the story backward.

God wouldn't be a "big" representation of us...we'd be the pale reflection of God.

He'd be the Original, and we'd be only the distant, faded image.
I don't think having destinations are necessarily a problem -- rather, problems may result from being inflexibly addicted to certain destinations. And I think there are definitely different ways to "explore"... such as, you can explore through observation, watching and listening, without any agenda or destination in mind.
Maybe. But if that persists, then the motive for exploring dwindles. Nobody wants to waste their time. We want to find out something, for all our "exploring."
Why would someone be ignorant for observing and remaining open to possibilities,

To be "open to possibilities" means "to be open to the possibility of finding something out." If one knew beforehand that one would find nothing, then what sane person would search at all?

"Exploring," "searching," "knowing," "being open" -- these are all hopeful activities, by which I mean they are undertaking in the hope of some good thing being found as a result of them. If we know what that thing is in advance, we don't "search" or "remain open." But if we are convinced there's no hope of finding anything, we don't go on the trip at all. We do something that has a promise of success instead.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: An act of God

Post by Lacewing » Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:59 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 am
Lacewing wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:17 am
Doesn't it seem obviously self-serving to imagine a "source" that is a big, unlimited version of us? How does that even possibly make sense?
Well, if there is a God, then you'd have the story backward.

God wouldn't be a "big" representation of us...we'd be the pale reflection of God.

He'd be the Original, and we'd be only the distant, faded image.
There is no reason to believe that we are anything at all like a god IF there were one. Not only that, but we distort and misunderstand and create all sorts of “idols” based on our limited awareness and perception and understanding. There could be a naturally vibrant energy pulsing through our being every second with the power to manifest anything at all -- yet, at our current state of human evolution, we may still be dressing up a god doll.

So who is more likely to be a representation of who?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 am
Lacewing wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:17 am
I don't think having destinations are necessarily a problem -- rather, problems may result from being inflexibly addicted to certain destinations. And I think there are definitely different ways to "explore"... such as, you can explore through observation, watching and listening, without any agenda or destination in mind.
Maybe. But if that persists, then the motive for exploring dwindles. Nobody wants to waste their time. We want to find out something, for all our "exploring."
You might be speaking of one impatient, demanding, egoic and self-serving way of being. But the processes and possibilities for moving through our Earthly experience are VAST. It is not a waste of time to observe and openly explore without agenda. It is fascinating and entertaining!

Some people may be intent on possession, power, and control -- such as the power to "definitively know/possess" something, and the control for administering/maintaining that. But such an approach is not necessary for building/broadening awareness, success, or manifestation. Based on my own experience (of myself and others), I believe there are very powerful alignments/connections that happen naturally when "human agendas" don't superimpose themselves over everything and get in the way of natural and cooperative dynamic rhythms.

Imagine this: It's a beautiful day and you're walking alongside a rippling stream, as beams of sunlight filter down through the canopy of trees, and a gentle breeze rustles the leaves in concert with birdsong that fills the air. In those moments, you are content to wander the stream without any agenda of finding anything in particular. You are fulfilled by the experience and the arising discoveries which you DO NOT CLING TO. You simply keep going, enthralled by awareness and sensation. There are people who can generally approach life this way -- even when it is not pleasant. Using the stream analogy, these people might deal with agendas from time to time such as climbing over a pile of boulders in their path, or they might need to quickly react to a snake, or they might need to build a shelter against the cold -- but, their basic nature remains open to accepting and interacting with (i.e. exploring) the unfoldment of the path, and there is fulfilment in that! It does not need to be a certain way. It doesn't even need to be definitively defined/known or controlled. Simply being alive is the exploration/revelation, and there are countless ways of experiencing/interacting with it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:45 am
To be "open to possibilities" means "to be open to the possibility of finding something out." If one knew beforehand that one would find nothing, then what sane person would search at all?
But you are the one who is claiming what is something and what is nothing, yes? And maybe you do not see how much "more" there is while the curtain of your beliefs is in place. My experience/perception is that there is SO MUCH flowing and manifesting and connecting in all directions and on so many levels. I do not need to search. It is a flow of momentary songs/vibrations on the wind -- both, beautifully grand and beautifully insignificant. Why do we imagine there must be something that uniquely serves our notions? Why would a vast Universe be focused/obsessed with us, as we are with ourselves? Is it not more interesting and freeing to embrace a SENSE OF BEING without condensing everything down into human fantasies? Rather, to use the human framework as a structure to observe from -- a tower, not a cage.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An act of God

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:08 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:59 am
Is it not more interesting and freeing to embrace a SENSE OF BEING without condensing everything down into human fantasies?
A human is the observed. The observed is not the observer. The observer is awareness, and awareness cannot be what it is observing as observer and observed are one unitary action, that cannot be reenacted.

The ''SENSE OF BEING'' is an apparent reaction of what is only ever ACAUSAL BEING. Although only a reaction can be KNOWN via the ''SENSE OF BEING''... no known thing is reacting...and is why knowledge can only inform the illusory nature of the reality of a known knower.

There is no thing looking upon an observed thing, for all things observed are being looked upon by awareness which is not a thing.




.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: An act of God

Post by Sculptor » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:51 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:08 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:59 am
Is it not more interesting and freeing to embrace a SENSE OF BEING without condensing everything down into human fantasies?
A human is the observed. The observed is not the observer. The observer is awareness, and awareness cannot be what it is observing as observer and observed are one unitary action, that cannot be reenacted.
Do you ever read back what you write before you hit send?
Humans are observed. Observers are observed. Awareness is not the same as "the observer"; not even on the same page. I lost interest in unpacking the last bit.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An act of God

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:32 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:51 pm
Humans are observed.
A human is a concept known ..known by the only knowing there is as observed.
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:51 pm
Observers are observed.
Observer cannot be observed by what it is observing.
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:51 pm
Awareness is not the same as "the observer"; not even on the same page.
Awareness is just another concept for emptiness. There is no concept for emptiness, but if you prefer, emptiness is the observer.

.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4063
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: An act of God

Post by Harbal » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:43 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:32 pm

There is no concept for emptiness,
And yet:
Awareness is just another concept for emptiness.
Is there a name for the concept of making it up as you go along?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An act of God

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:54 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:43 pm

Is there a name for the concept of making it up as you go along?
Yes, it's called imagination.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7079
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An act of God

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:04 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:43 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:32 pm

There is no concept for emptiness,
And yet:
Awareness is just another concept for emptiness.
It's impossible to not conceptualise the non-conceptual. The mind's only existence is in the world of mentally constructed concepts.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests