ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
No. God is not the word. The Big Bang is the word. There's a difference: the BB proveably originated energy and all the laws and relationships of energy-to-energy in all its forms the universe.
-
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!
What is a real God?
- Thread starter blü 2
- Start date
If the Big Bang was the result of the Bang, what expanded ?
Was it the singularity, wasn't that compressed energy ?
And....from where did the gravity come ?
What put the energy into the singularity to be compressed ?
And of course...where was `God`.....or Brahma...or......
Was it the singularity, wasn't that compressed energy ?
And....from where did the gravity come ?
What put the energy into the singularity to be compressed ?
And of course...where was `God`.....or Brahma...or......
ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
Of course. Big questions. But these quantum guys do not appreciate their hard won system being mis-quoted and abused by dizzy crystal-waving mystics. In my great experience and no offence intended to anyone in particular ...
Apologes
Active Member
You're confusing the epistemic status of some thing with it's ontological status. Epistemology deals with what can be known (demonstrated), ontology deals with what actually exists. These are two separate branches for a reason, yet you're conflating them by trying to jump from one thing lacking in it's epistemic qualities to it also lacking in actual existence (ontology).
Is that what he says? Okay, first thing is, see what you can find out what he can actually do and how he does it. I'll stall him if I can, find out what he wants.
So God doesn't have to be sentient? If a set of physical phenomena generated the Big Bang, that set would be God?
An explanation whose correctness has been demonstrated by science? No. At the present time we have no way of finding out about physical conditions (some add 'if any' at this point) before Time Zero, so explaining the origins of the Big Bang is a Black Box operation of inference, hypothesis, can we test the hypothesis? repeat.
But as I was saying in another conversation here, it's not necessary to imagine that energy only began to exist at the Big Bang. To my mind it makes vastly more sense to work with the idea that its contents at Time Zero were pre-existing mass-energy, and that everything in our universe ─ dimensions, matter, forces, the lot ─ are either forms of mass-energy or properties of it. And if that's right then time exists because energy does, rather than energy existing within time, which solves the problem of beginnings.
I see no confusion of ontology and epistemology here. Instead the argument is simple and direct.
What is your test for whether something has objective existence? Mine is satisfactory demonstration.
Then we come to the observation that if something doesn't have objective existence then the only existence it can have is as a thing imagined, a product of someone's mentation.
Dear Blu (with the umlaut)
I live with THE REAL and ONLY GOD 24 X 7 and can give you first hand information about what I know about <pronoun for the Real God>. I have a very close relationship with the Real God.
Many people have made good posts about the Real God, but if you give me some time and help to prevent other distracting conversation on this thread until then, I shall list a subset of the Real God's Divine qualities, both from personal experience and scripture, including what is commonly taught in various religions but is blurred/misinterpreted by human touch. Nothing bad about that, just human.
---
0. Before we jump to created or apparent universe, and capability to create it, we have to understand the nature of the Source, the One behind it all
(i) From interaction with the Real God
(ii) From inference and scripture
1. The Real God starts with the property of Being - existence
2. The ONLY Consciousness there is - Universal Consciousness, which has become all that appears to Be.
3. The Real God is an infinite ocean of deep LOVE. Very very very very deeeeep
4. The Real God has infinite capacity of an unimaginable state of bliss. It is not to be mistaken for human "happiness"
5. The Real God is deeply caring about all of us. The Ultimate Super-Parent. Super-nurturer, Super-Universal-Baby-sitter.
6. The Real God has super-heightened awareness of all existence and simultaneously THERE for every being and phenomenon.
7. He maintains this awareness and samAdhi (meditative state) and many other states all at once out of infinite deep Compassion.
This makes The Real God Formless Being (nirAkAr), but possibly choosing to appear in a form that is suitable, understandable,beneficial to individuals and groups. (I am avoiding Person for a reason - audience of this thread - although <Pronoun> is the Supreme Person. We Are.)
-----
8. The Real God became all of this apparent existence (what we call universe) just as a spider spins a web out of its own substance. i.e. there was no raw-material external to God. The Universe is a transformed appearance of the same Divine substance that God is.
9. The Real God is present in the "heart" or "inside" and beside 99% of sentient forms as a Witness, but to those who take shelter in the God, He is ever reciprocative, loving, guiding, protecting, always by their side.
This is the <I-shall-not-disclose-name(s)>-by-my-side.
Regarding comparison with Super-scientist:
NOTE: I was avoiding pronouns if you noticed (He, She, It, They) but for convenience I shall use He for the Real God.
10. Omniscient and Super-Intelligent, differentiated from a super-scientist because a super-scientist lacks omniscience, infinite compassion, infinite love, omnipresence, Yogic powers, omnipotence, Super-Universal-Benevolence ... a scientist can be compassionate, benevolent, have love for humanity and creatures, but will finally be limited by prakRuti (material nature) - although note that the outer-shell of the Super-Scientist is a fragment of a mellowed form of the Real God, in His image.
More on Divine Qualities - KalyAN-guNa of the Supreme which makes the ultimate realization that He and I are One at best and inseparable at the least.
1. Silence - maun
2. No ego. anahaMkArI (M = anusvAr dot)
3. Pure Being, Pure Consciousness (nirAmaya)
4. Greatness - continuous without break and the ONLY One (Bramhan, Vishwam, ananta)
5. Is Everywhere due to the continuity (VishNu)
6. Eternal and Master of past present future (nitya , bhUta bhavya bhavat prabhU)
7. The Real Nature of all apparent sentience. Not only the source, but the deep internal Truth that makes a creature - AtmA - The Real I. [Ego of the egotistic is the false I which seeks attention, praise out of vanity. Real God does not care what you think of Him, but will watch out for you when you need Him]
So the Real God is everyone's True "I" , True AtmA
8. Purest and taintless Being - pUtAtmA, Shiv, nirAmay, nirmal, nirguN, Nirvishesh,
9. Highest Being - paramAtmA and Purush (purushottam)
10. The One who is the goal, destination, Most Venerated , Worshiped for the Free, and Self-Realized (muktAnAm param gatim)
11. Ultimate Inner-Outer Witness of ALL apparent existence (sAkshi)
12. Protector and Master of righteousness, Goodness, fairness, true nature-disposition of beings and various principles (dharmAdhyakshya) - It is the Real God that can be your Divine Mother, Father, or friend if you want
13. Protector and Master of the Godly Beings (will be described in the next post - what is a Godly Being - deva or daivi prakRutI) (SurAdhyakshya)
14. Protector and Master of each category of beings and all communities in the various dimensions - not just 3rd dim (LokAdhyakshya)
15. Whatever Real God Wishes and Utters is the Purest Truth and manifests right away or when it should (vAchaspatI)
16. The Absolute and Ultimate and Eternal Truth (Satya)
17. Eternally blissful, peaceful and radiating these to us (nitya-trupta, nityAnanda, paramAnanda)
to be continued if there is interest...
|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||
om bhu:
om bhuvah:
om svah:
om maha:
om janah:
om tapah:
om satya
om bhur bhuva svah: |
tat savitur vareNyaM |
bhargo devasya dhImahI |
dhIyo yo nah: prachodayAt ||
Last edited:
dfnj
Well-Known Member
God is just a word. Until we experience God the way we experience and "apple", God is just a word.
ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
It's a loose analogy, but if say Elon Musk has the idea for a car, he will work with a team of experts snd specialists to set up a manufacturing process to physically produce it?
Then it goes back to the watchmaker thing. You take the car apart and find out: oh the spark ignites the fuel, turns the generator, sparks the plug, ignites the fuel ... hey look, it goes by itself.
The laws that assemble energy into the material universe are not inherent in the energy itself. If the laws had not come into being along with the energy, then the energy would remain formless?
I understand you are proposing a pre-big bang mono-energy that somehow does contain all the possibilities -- all possible laws. But it's useful to stick to the BB creation for purpose of discussion.
But if (you) start with the idea that intelligence is, can only be, the product of the brain, then (you) have to rule out the idea of a higher disembodied intelligence. It also forces (you) to anthropomorphise 'God'.
(This is not much different from someone starting out with the idea that God made the world in 6 days, and then expanding from there, because to him, there's no possible alternative?)
Which leaves man as the highest intelligence in the universe. This particular universe. Which is a pretty sad conclusion to draw from from the universe?
(Post edited)
Last edited:
ERLOS
God Feeds the Ravens
I do apologise. Of course it was not addressed to you. I don't know why I posted it as a reply to your comment.Are you calling me a dizzy mystic ???
It was a general comment about how certain types of 'new agers' like to pick up on certain quantum ideas and wave them around.
Apologes
Active Member
Not sure what to tell you then.
And this criteria is wrong for the reasons I mentioned. You are literally willing to concede that until something is discovered that something doesn't exist. Do I really need to offer an illustration of why that is nonsense? Just think of the Earth for example. For a long time everyone thought the Earth was flat as they had no reason to think otherwise (all their observations lended support to its flatness) yet after it was discovered with further, better obervations that the Earth was a globe (according to your theory) the flat Earth stopped existing and the globe was born.
Clearly this is as absurd as it gets for if there was no globe before it was demonstrated then how could it even be discovered in the first place. It's only logical to say that the Earth was always a globe even back when noone knew its true shape and that the only thing that changed after its discovery was its epistemic status with respect to humanity.
Do not plead that I mischaracterized your view as you said the same thing in post #169:
I appreciate your courtesy with the umlaut.
What definition of 'real' are you using?
By real, I mean 'having objective existence', 'not imaginary'; and by 'reality' I mean 'the set of all things with objective existence', aka 'nature', aka 'the realm of the physical sciences'.
This is where we bump up against 'realness' again. A real quality of a real god would be present in reality / nature, and its reality accordingly would in principle be able to be demonstrated, like any other real thing.
Well, in this context, inference could only arise from demonstrated facts, and any statement in scripture would have no standing unless and until it was demonstrated to be an accurate statement about reality ─ a task which, when I last looked, had not yet been undertaken.
In what real form? Describe the manner in which God exists, please.
I have no reason to think, at least to this point, that consciousness is anything but a phenomenon produced by the biochemistry of individual brains. What do you say consciousness is, and in what manner do you say it exists?
We can consider the rest when we have the preliminaries sorted and in place.
We experience an apple through our senses, because it's real, has objective existence. But it seems we never see God ─ there are no videos ─ or hear God ─ there are no recordings ─ or smell or touch or taste God. But you're saying that's wrong, that we can see and hear and make a video of God? (And find out what God tastes like?)
I will request you to summarise that for benefit of me and others.
Do you recognise that your rebuttal of my point is more sweeping than solipsism?
Probably you do not.See, human mind is not in control of anything: the birth, job place, marriage partner, residence, death etc. etc. It, however, harbours notions of doer-ship and notions of knowledge.
I merely pointed to this fact.
Yeah, I know that most folks who do not want to venture beyond empiricism go by assumptions only. You are honest about it. Most are not because most even do not know the assumptions.
OTOH, some of us say that there is no need for assumption. The question of God can be taken up once the question of "What is this I?" is solved. Both Vedanta and Buddhism (and of course in other schools also), recognise that extroverted mind engaged with objects is veiled by the objects. By introversion of the mind, it gets in touch with its source (itself), which is uncreated homogeneous timeless awareness. It is said that so-called creation begins here. We touch the base every night in deep sleep but we miss the significance because we think that the object-full waking world is objectively true.
Only this much can be said. Rest, I am taught, depends on actual experience, which I do not claim to have conscious access to.
Correct. This is not my imagination. I met God in Dec 2005. It is Being that communicates with your spirit when awake and in dreams (Others can also communicate - like ancestors, saints, gods - but those are different and that is when the observed Divine Qualities come into play).
Many have experienced this, so for us as a collective, this experience is objective and subjective (because God is our Higher Self) :
Visions, shows places you have never been to, but are too beautiful, verbal/non-verbal conversation, some insight into future, things you would never have known, shocked to discover later as true, open book to page which is a multiple of 7, 14 for assurance, open Gita to a page which answers your qn, events, sequences,,,
Simple Example: In March 2006 I had a dream that [Shri KRshNa] is taking me up a snowy mountain, and He said one word - Badrinath. I was tired, panting, said I cannot climb, but He insisted, just a little further, kept motivating... After snowy road and steps We reached an open air Temple - very simple - 4 pillars, bells with red ribbons, swaying and ringing due to wind alone.... the structure was surrounded by color festoons. Vivid. I thought this must be how Badrinath looked in olden days , when I went to the current Badrinath in 2012, 6 yrs later.
It was only last month, June 2018, 12 years later, that I accidentally(?) discovered that exact same path and temple exists , it is called Bhavishya Badri! The future Badrinath where a rock is slowly transforming in shape and is supposed to be the future location of the Holy Place of Lord as Badrinath. The Lord took me to Bhavishya Badri!
I swear I knew nothing about the Bhavishya Badri until I saw it on You Tube last month, This was again no coincidence, the Lord made it so this video would pop up. Exact Temple. Exact location. Exact orientation, except the color festoons were not there. This means in future the color festoons are going to be there, on Inauguration Day.
Example 2: I could not finish my Kedarnath journey in 2016 (was 3 km away from peak and temple) and the Lord gave 3 shockingly distinct indications of His Presence in nature using material from that very mountain, from nature. "Don't worry, if you can't make it up to the peak in devotion, I shall come to you" - (Clue: accidentally naturally formed sculptures, shapes where a human cannot possibly climb/reach, Huge shadow of Shiv, Agastya Muni , sunlight in an unusual angle...)
*For those in northern hemisphere, who had never been to Australia, when there were no airplanes, internet, photography, they wouldn't know that Australia is real. Does it mean it does not exist?
1. See the 2 examples above.
2. I have only referenced that scripture which aligns perfectly with my experience and observation. You can discard scripture, not experience.
3. Our Leela (Divine history -- mine and His -- of this life ) will fill up a 12-volume book if I write it OR I could just be silent, and I prefer the latter. It is not easy to make this post. Something too sacred.
4. Real because a Being accidentally communicates with you, who in normal terms, is another being. After the first realization (sAkshAtkAr) for years everyday you experience life with Being. Transcendental experiences I cannot go into here, things I would have never known, dreamt of, and just conversation, logical, guidance on life, life-changing events which you would never shape on your own...
* courage which you woiuld never have had by yourself, or from people around you, is given by the Supreme. So many things.
The Higher Self which is beyond mind, intellect. It is someone other than the ordinary mind which we call "me"
Brain is just an instrument that God uses. If He uses our brain as instrument, this is His Grace.
The way I can witness it as apart from the mundane mind - shows the source is other than brain chemicals
(i) Observe thoughtless silence inside
(ii) Experience of a Being who has come to lead you by the hand, is always with you, by your side , within and without and everywhere, can be felt in others,.....
is the Universal Consciousness from which sprouts everything. Think of it like a very complex piece of software from conception to materialization and usage.
This is all I can say. Already spoke too much. Will not discuss further.
It was nice talking to you.
Not if the rules of physics simply describe properties of energy in the relationships of its various forms.
Either the contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero was uniform (=mass-energy for present purposes) or the contents of the BB at T0 was a salad. Perhaps there are sound reasons why it couldn't be uniform, but I'm not aware of them, so Occam tells me to go with uniform.
What does 'disembodied' mean here? Real chemical elements in an unfamiliar formation, or something along those lines? Or something that doesn't have objective existence and therefore can only be imaginary?
At present, the only place we know where life of any kind exists is right here on earth. I've come across the opinion that the number of stars in the universe may be between 1 and 100 septillion (10^24-10^26). It may be that you need opportunities like that ─ plus some 14 bn years to play with ─ for coincidences to chain chemistry into becoming biochemistry to becoming intelligent biochemistry.
So if we turn out to be the best it ever gets, yup, it's a pity we're not collectively more constructive. But (a) if there's a superbeing in charge of the project then its success or failure is to the credit or blame of that superbeing, and (b) if there's no such superbeing, it's not to our credit or blame that we're here, but we'd be dumb not to try to do something better with it.
So we may be able to agree on at least that much.