What is God?

[firedragon]

That is what we started with at the time of Big Bang, a ball of high temp., high Pressure energy according to the standard model of Big Bang.

Prove with empiricism that Brahman is energy. This is just preaching.

 

[blü 2]

Ask.

Ask what? Whether Mikkel's views and mine on the questions mentioned are irreconcilable?

I already know the answer. I'd be surprised if Mikkel disputed it, since it's also his answer.

 

[firedragon]

Ask what? Whether Mikkel's views and mine on the questions mentioned are irreconcilable?

I already know the answer. I'd be surprised if Mikkel disputed it, since it's also his answer.

I think you have gone into a completely different topic.

 

[blü 2]

You know my views. God is not anything real. It is the product of human imagination. However, my concept of Brahman does not make it into a God. For me, Brahman is 'physical energy', which constitutes all things in the universe without any exception. Brahman is omnipresent and eternal. Brahman is the only objective existent entity and takes all forms that we observe in the universe, since there is nothing else.

As a materialist I have no problem with that, though wiser heads than mine here kindly pointed out that on our present understanding of physics, I should think of reality as composed of both matter and energy.

Thus I think the contents of the Big Bang were matter and energy, that the rules of physics are qualities or effects of matter and energy, that our dimensions (or at the least the spatial ones ─ time can get me confused) are effects of matter and energy,

 

[blü 2]

I think you have gone into a completely different topic.

Then my apologies accordingly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I should think of reality as composed of both matter and energy.

Matter is energy. Ask Einstein.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prove with empiricism that Brahman is energy. This is just preaching.

How is this a preaching. It is the accepted position in science. Check Wikipedia or anywhere else.

 

[firedragon]

How is this a preaching. It is the accepted position in science. Check Wikipedia or anywhere else.

Prove that Brahman is Energy via empirical evidence since you are an empiricist.

 

[Heyo]

Matter is energy. Ask Einstein.

Matter and energy are solutions of field equations. Ask Schrödinger.

(All are models of reality which are more or less practical in different situations. In the end they have to to be equivalent.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prove that Brahman is Energy via empirical evidence since you are an empiricist.

There is nothing to prove (according to the standard model of Big Bang) when I clearly say that Brahman is 'physical energy', only that it is the name adopted in Advaita Hinduism (non-dualism) for the sole entity that exists and constitutes all things in the universe without any exception. As I always say even Pol Pot and Caliph Ibrahim were none other than Brahman. > You too are that < (Tat twam asi - Chandogya Upanishad).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Matter and energy are solutions of field equations. Ask Schrödinger.

Well, ask any one, Einstein or Schrodinger. Just don't ask anyone in the Quantum Mechanics. Only Allah knows what they may reply.

 

[firedragon]

As I always say even Pol Pot and Caliph Ibrahim were none other than Brahman. > You too are that < (Tat twam asi - Chandogya Upanishad).

Prove that empirically.

 

[blü 2]

Matter is energy. Ask Einstein.

These are ultimately questions for more expert knowledge than mine.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That wasn't my question. I discern between being real and existing (as laid out in 5 Planes of Existence). So, again, do we agree that god(s) isn't/aren't real (but may exist in some other form)?

Yes, I would say as God is a Spirit person (invisible to us) form.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Nope. We're after a photo or video or TV interview of the "painter" or "greatest artist" you speak of ─ who so far appears to exist only as a concept / thing imagined by individuals.

However, we don't imagine nature, imagine the Earth around us.
When we see a cabin out in a secluded woods we know someone built it.
So to me, we can conclude the same thing about the orderly universe.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If the whole of nature is God, I prefer to continue to call it nature, since (wince) its nature won't change.

I find nature won't change because God created the Earth to exist forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalms 104:5
Where ever damaged is stopped, resilient Earth bounces right back.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Love is a somewhat ambiguous term, but like all human feelings, it's the result of the biochemical processes of the brain and body. Much of it is concerned with pair bonding for breeding purposes, and with the offspring for their protection till they become independent, and with grandchildren consequently. There are also evolved tendencies for the welfare of one's family more broadly, for your friends and associates, for your district, and other groups larger still with which you may identify.
I have no objection to 1 Corinthians 13:4-6, if, as is appropriate to any aspirational statement, we add a requirement of common sense.
But there's no meaningful definition of a real God anywhere in the bible. Certainly not Jesus, who whether in Paul's version or the versions of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, expressly denies he's God.

I like how you said 'add a requirement of common sense' or as some people would say horse sense.
To Jesus common sense is to have self-sacrificing love by putting others first - John 13:34-35.
In other words, Jesus was stressing to Now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule.

Jesus too never claimed to be God - John 10:36.
When un-faithhful Jews began mixing with non-Jews they adopted their non-scriptural view points.
This lead to the formation of 'Christendom' (so-called Christian but mostly in name only).
Yes, John never taught Jesus was ' before' the beginning as God was ' before' the beginning - Psalms 90:2
Rather, Jesus was ' IN' the beginning but Not 'before' the beginning as his God was.

 

[blü 2]

When we see a cabin out in a secluded woods we know someone built it.
So to me, we can conclude the same thing about the orderly universe.

It began to be clear around the end of the 18th century, and was quite plain even before Darwin (1859) that the argument from design you're using is inadequate, leads only to a god-of-the-ever-shrinking-gaps.

But that's a matter for you, of course.

We still have no coherent concept of a real God, one with objective existence, a metabolism, sensory organs, and so on.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It began to be clear around the end of the 18th century, and was quite plain even before Darwin (1859) that the argument from design you're using is inadequate, leads only to a god-of-the-ever-shrinking-gaps.
But that's a matter for you, of course.
We still have no coherent concept of a real God, one with objective existence, a metabolism, sensory organs, and so on.

No physical God, but biblical God is a Spirit Person who lives in the heaven of heavens - 1st Kings 8

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prove that empirically.

Are you not made up of molecules and atoms? And are molecules and atoms anything other than energy? Why should such a simple thing tax your brain? You are a knowledgeable person.