Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
'You' can call God Absolute if you want to.
Can't really grasp that singularity...can 'you'.
Such a nattering idiot. This forum really should moderate for posting quality.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
'You' can call God Absolute if you want to.
Can't really grasp that singularity...can 'you'.
Such a nattering idiot. This forum really should moderate for posting quality.
(Accurate) personal comments do not lower the overall quality of posting on this site half as much as your repetitive, vacuous gibberish does. It was just wishful thinking on my part anyways, they will clearly never moderate for posting quality (for which you are very thankful), so I'll just leave it at that. If only, sigh.
With such a stance at hand....
You must then assume substance first...spirit as consequence.
Which leads to death and no continuance.
Not very optimistic.
And it renders all of life as a mystery with no resolve or purpose.
So Substance came first, and spirit was a consequence, I like that.
'You' can call God Absolute if you want to.
Can't really grasp that singularity...can 'you'.
If God is not Absolute, God's existence is relative? To what?
Now we might be getting somewhere....have you considered?
Let there be light....is synonymous to...'I AM!'
So NOW your reasoning turns to what you like?
(you did read the entire quote...right?)
lol what i like that is what it was. Man was formed and then breathe was given.
Substance then spirit.
OK. So I think we can we safely say that the universe is, in fact, the Absolute, as Vivikenanda is telling us.
OK. So I think we can we safely say that the universe is, in fact, the Absolute, as Vivikenanda is telling us.
If we can, then we could just as safely say that the universe is, in fact, Potatoes, because this is no less and no more informative than slapping some vague metaphysical label like "absolute" on it. Your formulation (or Viveknanda's) is vacuous and uninformative.
The dictionary defines 'universal' as being 'absolute'; 'absolute' meaning 'everything' to which there is nothing to compare it to.
'potatoes' is relative.
In what sense is the universe not absolute?..that is to say, not everything?
See post #972.
The universe needs 2 qualifiers to be the absolute. It has to be the only universe in existence and it has to be it's own source.Why do you say 'no'?