When God Created

[Fool]

When God created the physical/actual world, did it project itself into it? Omnipresent? or did it project itself into something besides itself; which would negate god being omnipresent? or something apart from god, or not sovereign to god.

And if God projected itself into the actual from the mental, then is all actualized things in essence some aspect of the Absolute? like a hologram?

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe | University of Southampton

 

[Kenny]

Could it be the physical is the hologram of the spiritual?

 

[viole]

When God created the physical/actual world, did it project itself into it? Omnipresent? or did it project itself into something besides itself; which would negate god being omnipresent? or something apart from god, or not sovereign to god.

And if God projected itself into the actual from the mental, then is all actualized things in essence some aspect of the Absolute? like a hologram?

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe | University of Southampton

If there were something like a deepities detector, you would have destroyed it by overcharging it by now.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JustWondering]

When God created the physical/actual world, did it project itself into it? Omnipresent? or did it project itself into something besides itself; which would negate god being omnipresent? or something apart from god, or not sovereign to god.

And if God projected itself into the actual from the mental, then is all actualized things in essence some aspect of the Absolute? like a hologram?

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe | University of Southampton

I don't think you understand what the article is getting at.

Secondly, the article didn't have anything in it about god.

Third, why do you start with the ASSUMPTION that a god is required for a universe to exist?

 

[Woberts]

I believe what the article meant was that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not God, created the universe. Sorry!

 

[Fool]

If there were something like a deepities detector, you would have destroyed it by overcharging it by now.

Ciao

- viole

since you're already self-proxying for such a detector by knowing deepities from shallowiees and before self-destructing, consider ignoring the deepities that disturb you.

 

[Fool]

I don't think you understand what the article is getting at.

Secondly, the article didn't have anything in it about god.

Third, why do you start with the ASSUMPTION that a god is required for a universe to exist?

all the subject matter is different. the principle is the same. if there is a god and it is omnipresent, then every form, facet, aspect is like all the different gods that represent brahman, or the absolute. they can't exist outside whole. they can only exist within. in our density, they are a 3d representation of some form that that part of the universe can take.


similar idea where all forms are basically different configurations of particles.

 

[Fool]

I believe what the article meant was that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not God, created the universe. Sorry!

there are those, non-athesit, who believe in a thing, or attribute, that they identify as god, or godly. unless they can know this from 1st person experience they can't prove it exists. how will they ever experience something that exists remotely from themselves? how will they know something for themselves; if they have never experienced it. how does one know what an apple tastes like; if they have never tasted an apple.

we'd all be screaming spaghetti monster advocates; but some of us know god for self.

know thyself

 

[JustWondering]

all the subject matter is different. the principle is the same. if there is a god and it is omnipresent, then every form, facet, aspect is like all the different gods that represent brahman, or the absolute. they can't exist outside whole. they can only exist within. in our density, they are a 3d representation of some form that that part of the universe can take.


similar idea where all forms are basically different configurations of particles.

You began your post with the claim (and assumption) that god created the physical universe (which assumes that a non-physical universe exists), then post a link to something that has nothing to do with your unsupported supernatural claims. So, maybe you can explain what you're trying to debate here.

 

[JustWondering]

there are those, non-athesit, who believe in a thing, or attribute, that they identify as god, or godly. unless they can know this from 1st person experience they can't prove it exists. how will they ever experience something that exists remotely from themselves? how will they know something for themselves; if they have never experienced it. how does one know what an apple tastes like; if they have never tasted an apple.

we'd all be screaming spaghetti monster advocates; but some of us know god for self.

know thyself

If you want to define humans as gods I can't stop you. I certainly don't agree however.

 

[Fool]

You began your post with the claim (and assumption) that god created the physical universe (which assumes that a non-physical universe exists), then post a link to something that has nothing to do with your unsupported supernatural claims. So, maybe you can explain what you're trying to debate here.

some theists believe a god created the physical universe.

i'm attempting to have a debate with those folks who believe in ex-nihilo and related a similar idea to the non-ex-nilo idea of a holographic universe.how a part of that whole hologram would be represented in a part of that hologram when observed separate from the whole

case in point, the vitruvian man represents the microcosm

 

[Fool]

If you want to define humans as gods I can't stop you. I certainly don't agree however.

really? you don't see humans as have the ability to be creative; especially once they become self-aware, or self-realized?

 

[JustWondering]

really? you don't see humans as have the ability to be creative; especially once they become self-aware, or self-realized?

What's the purpose of calling people gods? Humans already have a name, tacking on the label of god to people seems narcissistic, it's only purpose meant to make us feel special and stroke our egos.

 

[Fool]

What's the purpose of calling people gods?

because most fundamentalist see themselves as divided against god. the bible explains that god is love. a fundamentalist would agree with you, that seeing themselves as god doesn't serve a purpose. a fundamentalist would find it insulting to God but then if this thing is inherent, how can they harm anything and not be harming themselves, or harming themselves not be harming god?

Humans already have a name, tacking on the label of god to people seems narcissistic, it's only purpose meant to make us feel special and stroke our egos.

being somewhat narcissistic isn't unhealthy. in fact, self-loathing is unhealthy and narcissism is unhealthy when one deems themselves more loving and deserving of love than another.

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2012/01/01/narcissus-and-the-lake/

humans have all types of self-proclaimed names. in that culture at that time, it was no big problem for idealistic things to become realized.

and relating to the physical world as god manifested, doesn't make something more special than another.

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

so if there is this abstract idea, why is is it an astonishment that humans can manifest it?


1 John 4:12

12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.


Jesus claimed he was god, or love. he claimed you were too. then how could someone claim to love god yet hate their other manifestations, offspring?

love doesn't have a definite physical form but it does have a definite physical action.

 

[JustWondering]

because most fundamentalist see themselves as divided against god. the bible explains that god is love. a fundamentalist would agree with you, that seeing themselves as god doesn't serve a purpose. a fundamentalist would find it insulting to God but then if this thing is inherent, how can they harm anything and not be harming themselves, or harming themselves not be harming god?




being somewhat narcissistic isn't unhealthy. in fact, self-loathing is unhealthy and narcissism is unhealthy when one deems themselves more loving and deserving of love than another.

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2012/01/01/narcissus-and-the-lake/

humans have all types of self-proclaimed names. in that culture at that time, it was no big problem for idealistic things to become realized.

and relating to the physical world as god manifested, doesn't make something more special than another.

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

so if there is this abstract idea, why is is it an astonishment that humans can manifest it?


1 John 4:12

12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.


Jesus claimed he was god, or love. he claimed you were too. then how could someone claim to love god yet hate their other manifestations, offspring?

love doesn't have a definite physical form but it does have a definite physical action.

The bible simply doesn't support your views. The bible clearly explains that god is an entity separate from humanity that humanity is to obey and worship. Yet you say humans are god while quoting from the bible. You can twist what the bible says to fit your personal religion if you want, but I'm not obligated to go along with it.

 

[Fool]

The bible simply doesn't support your views. The bible clearly explains that god is an entity separate from humanity that humanity is to obey and worship. Yet you say humans are god while quoting from the bible. You can twist what the bible says to fit your personal religion if you want, but I'm not obligated to go along with it.

no it doesn't. it says apart from me there is no other; so then all must dwell within the ALL. that would be like believing we are separate from the universe, we aren't. god is an action, a motion, a force that results in love as a noun with god being the verb and the result of itself as a noun. it isn't a thing that then acts upon something else, it acts upon itself. love so loved, then arise another form, another reality.

 

[JustWondering]

no it doesn't. it says apart from me there is no other; so then all must dwell within the ALL. that would be like believing we are separate from the universe, we aren't. god is an action, a motion, a force that results in love as a noun with god being the verb and the result of itself as a noun. it isn't a thing that then acts upon something else, it acts upon itself. love so loved, then arise another form, another reality.

Like I said, you are basically interpreting things in the bible as you want. Have fun. I'm not obligated to play along.

 

[tayla]

negate god being omnipresent

I'm not fond of using the philosophy of Aristotle (such as the omni- words) in describing God. Seems the logical inconsistencies overflow quickly when doing this.

 

[tayla]

When God created the physical/actual world, did it project itself into it? Omnipresent? or did it project itself into something besides itself; which would negate god being omnipresent? or something apart from god, or not sovereign to god.

And if God projected itself into the actual from the mental, then is all actualized things in essence some aspect of the Absolute? like a hologram?

As a panentheist, I think God infuses every aspect of everything he creates. I have no idea about the mechanics of how God creates.