-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God's Magic
- Thread starter Arkwort
- Start date
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Evolution brought God into existence.
Arkwort
Eternal Dreamer
Can anything bring itself into existence from nothing?
No.
Then God exists and always was.
Arkwort
You seem to have brought certainty into existence from nothing.Can anything bring itself into existence from nothing?
No.
Then God exists and always was.
Arkwort
Arkwort
Eternal Dreamer
Can anything bring itself into existence from nothing?
No.
Then God exists and always was.
Arkwort
That "No" should of ended with a question mark!
It was meant to be a question.
In mathematics 0 = + 1 - 1
So in maths you can get something from nothing.
Perhaps you can get positive and negative energy from nothing,
and from this the universe arises! (MAYBE)
Arkwort :sleep:
Perhaps! If the singularity that was torn asunder by a Big Bang and has expaned out to become all that is, and has evolved an intellect capable of comprehending Mind, and that singularity has evolved as the compilation of all the minds that have evolved from the original singularity which is He who is ONE; then perhaps if he chose to do so, He might be able to clone Himself by taking one photon which has zero mass and no electric charge, and place it it many different positions in space in the one apparent position in time, It just may be possible.
Arkwort
Eternal Dreamer
Do you think there is a connection between the singularity from which Big bang emerged, and the technological singularity which will occur around 2045 (according to Ray Kurzeil)? All that's disconnecting them is 13.5 Billion years!
Arkwort
Do I think that there is a connection between the singularity from which the Big bang emerged, and the technological singularity which will occur around 2045 (according to Ray Kurzeil)?
None at all mate, none at all. As I don't believe that any event of any great significanse will occur around 2045 apart from the war to end all wars in the year of "Who knows.".
None at all mate, none at all. As I don't believe that any event of any great significanse will occur around 2045 apart from the war to end all wars in the year of "Who knows.".
Last edited:
What mind, I can’t see your mind, where does it exist if it does exist at all? Does it exist in this glob of Groplukertosuparticalon that’s splattered across my screen? Are you sure that it (Groplukertosuparticalon) appeared in your supposed mind, which you have not proven to even exists, or did that which you call your mind, begin to evolve in the Primeval soup of some ancient pool of slimy Groplukertosuparticalon?
What made you think that you made him up? Perhaps it was the great Groplukertosuparticalon who made you think that you just made him up? Next thing you will be telling us that you are a triad being, consisting of a material body made up of the universal elements that is animated by some invisible soul, in which lump of animated matter, there developed an invisible mind which is filled with slimy Groplukertosuparticalon.
Last edited:
Ya recon so, do you? Well I would argue with you on that point, cos I recon evolution creates gods.
Last edited:
Arkwort
Eternal Dreamer
Do you mean that as time goes by and we keep evolving that eventually the monkey, for example, will eventually evolve into a God?
Or do you mean that God(s) are the product of a thinking mind?
No old mate, a monkey is a monkey, but the singularity that was in the beginning was torn asunder for the foundations of the world, and that ever evolving singularity manifests himself in the most high within the creation at any given point in his evolution.
On earth the singularity from which all has originated, first became all the plants, then all the fish, all the insects, all the birds, all the beasts, and all of mankind who is Lord of creatures, having gained dominion over the animal kingdom. And the eternal evolving mind that is God will become the new non-physical being, who will gain dominion over all life forms that had evolved prior to it and it will be the god and ruler of all on earth and in the heavens.
For the Son of Man presides in the heavenly council; and in the assembly of the gods he gives his decisions. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body, but it is the physical body that comes first. You must understand that we shall not all fall asleep in death, but we who are united to Jesus who was the first fruits, the first of many brothers to be redeemed from the body of mankind and placed as the cornerstone to the the new Temple in which the ever evolving Godhead will dwell, will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye from bodies of corruptible matter, into incorruptible bodies of brilliant and blinding light, such as the brilliant being who confronted Paul on his way to Damascus, blinding him who asked the brilliant Being,"Who Are you," only to hear the answer, "I am Jesus of Nazareth".
Last edited:
slave2six
Substitious
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
One interpretation of the tetragrammaton (not yahway or Jehova) YHVH
is
All that was
All that is
and
All that will be.
....
Of course in esoteric modes of thought, often everything comes from nothing...
Of course this is beyond subjective ideas such as 0= 1 -1
Here we see something on the nature of nothing from a kabbalist perspective:
The word nothingness, of course, connotes negativity and nonbeing, but what the mystic means by divine nothingness is that God is greater than any thing one can imagine, no thing. Since God’s being is incomprehensible and ineffable, the least offensive and most accurate description one can offer is, paradoxically, nothing. David ben Abraham ha-Lavan, a fourteenth-century kabbalist, corrects any misapprehension: “Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world. But since it is simple, and all simple things are complex compared with its simplicity, it is called ayin.” David’s mystical Christian contemporaries concur. The Byzantine theologian Gregory Palamas writes, “He is not being, if that which is not God is being.” Eckhart says, “God’s niht fills the entire world; His something though is nowhere.”[2]
extract from:
Ain Sof « Prayers and Reflections
is
All that was
All that is
and
All that will be.
....
Of course in esoteric modes of thought, often everything comes from nothing...
Of course this is beyond subjective ideas such as 0= 1 -1
Here we see something on the nature of nothing from a kabbalist perspective:
The word nothingness, of course, connotes negativity and nonbeing, but what the mystic means by divine nothingness is that God is greater than any thing one can imagine, no thing. Since God’s being is incomprehensible and ineffable, the least offensive and most accurate description one can offer is, paradoxically, nothing. David ben Abraham ha-Lavan, a fourteenth-century kabbalist, corrects any misapprehension: “Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world. But since it is simple, and all simple things are complex compared with its simplicity, it is called ayin.” David’s mystical Christian contemporaries concur. The Byzantine theologian Gregory Palamas writes, “He is not being, if that which is not God is being.” Eckhart says, “God’s niht fills the entire world; His something though is nowhere.”[2]
Mystics contemplate the void, but not in a vacuum. The kabbalists were influenced not only by Jewish philosophers but also, directly or indirectly, by pagan and Christian Neoplatonic thinkers: Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, and John Scotus Erigena. Philo, the mystical philosopher who straddled the first centuries BCE and CE, was unknown to the kabbalists, but it was he who introduced the concept of the unknowability and indescribability of God. Philo paved the way for negative theology, emphasizing the unlikeness of God to things in the world. “God alone has veritable being…..Things posterior to him have no real being but are believed to exist in imagination only.”[3] The goal of religious life is to see through the apparent reality of the world and to shed the consciousness of a separate self. “This is the natural course: one who comprehends himself fully, lets go totally of the nothingness that he discovers in all creation, and one who lets go of himself comes to know the Existent.”[4] One of the great mysteries is the contrast between the power “of the Uncreated and the exceeding nothingness of the created.”[5]
Philo’s nothingness (oudeneia)refers to the unreality of creation in the face of the only true reality, the divine. Here, nothingness has a purely negative quality; it describes a fundamental lack. In the overwhelming discovery that everything is an expression of the divine, creation as an independent entity collapses and is reduced to nothing. By contemplating this basic fact, one is transported into the presence of God. “For then is the time for the creature to encounter the Creator, when it has recognized its own nothingness.” The ideal is “to learn to measure one’s own nothingness.”[6]
God is immeasurable, nameless, and ineffable. In this, Philo foreshadows the Gnostics, some of whom surpass him in applying negative language to God. The Gnostic God, as distinct from the creative demiurge, is totally different, the other, unknown. He is “the incomprehensible, inconceivable one who is superior to every thought,” “ineffable, inexpressible, nameable by silence.”[7] Trying to outdo his predecessors in negative theology, Basilides, the second-century Alexandrian Gnostic, opposes even the term “ineffable” as a predicate of God. His words are preserved by Hippolytus of Rome, who cites him in his attack against various prevalent heresies: “That which is named [ineffable] is not absolutely ineffable, since we call one thing ineffable and another not even ineffable. For that which is not even ineffable is not named ineffable, but is above every name that is named.”[8]
God transcends the capacity of human language and the category of being. Basilides speaks of the “nameless nonexistent God.” This negation is clarified in another Gnostic treatise, Allogenes: “Nor is he something that exists, that one could know. But he is something else…..that is better, whom one cannot know….. He has nonbeing existence.”[9]
Philo’s nothingness (oudeneia)refers to the unreality of creation in the face of the only true reality, the divine. Here, nothingness has a purely negative quality; it describes a fundamental lack. In the overwhelming discovery that everything is an expression of the divine, creation as an independent entity collapses and is reduced to nothing. By contemplating this basic fact, one is transported into the presence of God. “For then is the time for the creature to encounter the Creator, when it has recognized its own nothingness.” The ideal is “to learn to measure one’s own nothingness.”[6]
God is immeasurable, nameless, and ineffable. In this, Philo foreshadows the Gnostics, some of whom surpass him in applying negative language to God. The Gnostic God, as distinct from the creative demiurge, is totally different, the other, unknown. He is “the incomprehensible, inconceivable one who is superior to every thought,” “ineffable, inexpressible, nameable by silence.”[7] Trying to outdo his predecessors in negative theology, Basilides, the second-century Alexandrian Gnostic, opposes even the term “ineffable” as a predicate of God. His words are preserved by Hippolytus of Rome, who cites him in his attack against various prevalent heresies: “That which is named [ineffable] is not absolutely ineffable, since we call one thing ineffable and another not even ineffable. For that which is not even ineffable is not named ineffable, but is above every name that is named.”[8]
God transcends the capacity of human language and the category of being. Basilides speaks of the “nameless nonexistent God.” This negation is clarified in another Gnostic treatise, Allogenes: “Nor is he something that exists, that one could know. But he is something else…..that is better, whom one cannot know….. He has nonbeing existence.”[9]
extract from:
Ain Sof « Prayers and Reflections
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
People anthropomorphise things....
which is different to creating them.
People can give things shapes, ie. we see a cup, it is red, we perceive it as red
The cup is actually a collection of many many atoms all whirring around, we perceive it as a cup... we didnt create a cup...we created a perception...not the cup.
And so it is with the entire Cosmos. We see a solid object , but as we go deeper into that apparent solid, we see it is but a gathering of molecules, then as deeper and deeper we go, we see that the molecules are nothing but a gathering of myriads of animated Atoms, which in turn are nothing more than a gathering of subatomic particles that are not particles at all, but waves, having zero mass no electric charge yet carrying linear and angular momentum, and this swirling cloud of an unimaginable number of different patterns within the cosmic cloud, is the ever evolving mind that is God. And who is to say that the cosmic cloud itself, is but one wave/particle which occupies myriads of different positions in space in the one apparent point in time?
For God is today as he was yesterday and will be unto all eternity, God is the eternal constant in that he is constantly evolving, for it impossible for any mind to cease to evolve, unless that mind ceases to exist.
Did we not arrange those atoms into something that we then perceive as a cup?
Which is to say, we created that cup? You statement seems to suggest that the "cup" was always there and we came along and "named it a cup".