Why "one God"?

[mystic64]

I really don't follow you. I much prefer my way of looking at physical simply as one set of ideas about the world.


Many theists hold God to be unknowable, yes, or even the unknowable--but that doesn't defy or deny 'entire purpose,' as its entire purpose is embodied in the meaning that is being conveyed by their use of the word, including, presumably, its implications and all it entails: the unknowable.

To lable something "unknowable" limits one's ability to know. And God is knowable if one is willing to accept the existence of a reality that is beyond words. "I much prefer my way of looking at the physical simply as one set of ideas about the world." I do not see how there is anyother rational way to approach it . And the true physical at this point is a mathematical language that science has created as an attempt to discribe abservable phenomenum. And that languge ultimately drfts into infinity at both ends. The physical is just one set of ideas about the world .

 

[Nakosis]

When I refer to "God" what I have in mind is the eternal non-existent self. Which doesn't mean much to anyone who hasn't had some experience with it.

The only "truth" is God, everything else is an illusion created by God. The physical is an illusion of perception. This is our reality. The self is illusion which exists within an illusion that we experience as our reality. Calling it an illusion makes it no less of a real experience.

Any experience of God is part of the illusion. There is no "truth" to the God we experience as there is no "truth" to the self we experience. However that doesn't mean we don't experience it.

My experience of God is as real as any other thing I experience. As far as experiencing it goes, it doesn't matter that it is illusion.

What matters to me is my ability to affect and create within this illusion which is the reality of my experience.

One God, many Gods. They are all illusion yet they can all be part of my experience if I choose it. Love, hate, pain, joy. Up to you and your own ability to create these things.

 

[mystic64]

I'm not saying that God has to have a purpose; I'm saying that you need to know a thing's purpose to say that it's superfluous.

When something is "superfluous", this means that the thing's purpose will be achieved without it. This means that to declare more than one god "superfluous", you need to knkw the purpose of God.

I recognize that it's ridiculous for a human to know the purpose of God; that was part of the point I was making.

Hi Penguin we meet again and I am not stocking you , You are just fun to interact with and you have a keen mind. "Superfluos", something that is not needed. I would be inclined to say that "Purpose" is a human concept that is superfluos to the grand scheme of things, And if one God will do it all, then the rest of the gods are superfluos. Making a monetary sacrifice to many gods can get expencive, so making a monetary sacrifice to only one God who solves everything makes more sense and would be cheaper . The reason that we can never know the purpose of God is that He does not have a purpose, He is just hanging out. He does love us though, but that is not a purpose.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is only "ONE GOD".

why did you accept it?

faith

How does this make sense?

logic

What are its properties? (volume, weight, mass etc,).

supernatural by definition, (he created volume, weight and mass among some other useful stuff)

What was/is its necessity?

love


any hard ones?

 

[mystic64]

When I refer to "God" what I have in mind is the eternal non-existent self. Which doesn't mean much to anyone who hasn't had some experience with it.

The only "truth" is God, everything else is an illusion created by God. The physical is an illusion of perception. This is our reality. The self is illusion which exists within an illusion that we experience as our reality. Calling it an illusion makes it no less of a real experience.

Any experience of God is part of the illusion. There is no "truth" to the God we experience as there is no "truth" to the self we experience. However that doesn't mean we don't experience it.

My experience of God is as real as any other thing I experience. As far as experiencing it goes, it doesn't matter that it is illusion.

What matters to me is my ability to affect and create within this illusion which is the reality of my experience.

One God, many Gods. They are all illusion yet they can all be part of my experience if I choose it. Love, hate, pain, joy. Up to you and your own ability to create these things.

Nakosis, it all starts where you are at. "What matters to me is my ability to affect and create within this ilusion which is the reality of my experience." To be honest with you Nakosis I am at the same place that you are . My problem is that I do not want to be God. So if you do not mind being God, then I suspect that you will find things a lot easier. I want to walk with God, which is turning out to be quite a challenge me being me and all .

 

[mystic64]

faith



logic



supernatural by definition, (he created volume, weight and mass among some other useful stuff)




love


any hard ones?

Why is going to Heaven important?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Ever heard of natures, like Pokemon? We are all Gods. My idea is we are all the master of unique archetype from happiness to edicuit. Not that we aren't all happy, but one of us is the incarnate of Happiness and the host of the transmission we all receive.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why is going to Heaven important?

Would you not prefer it over the alternative?

 

[Nakosis]

Nakosis, it all starts where you are at. "What matters to me is my ability to affect and create within this ilusion which is the reality of my experience." To be honest with you Nakosis I am at the same place that you are . My problem is that I do not want to be God. So if you do not mind being God, then I suspect that you will find things a lot easier. I want to walk with God, which is turning out to be quite a challenge me being me and all .

I understand completely. The experience of God is no less real.

My problem is I've experienced many Gods. I've sought the truth of many religions. Not sure I can recommend that because it only gets confusing.

 

[mystic64]

Would you not prefer it over the alternative?

To answer a question with a question is an evasion attempt to answering the first question. No more no less. The important reason is so that we can have the opportunity to humbly kneel before the feet of God for eternity.

 

[mystic64]

I understand completely. The experience of God is no less real.

My problem is I've experienced many Gods. I've sought the truth of many religions. Not sure I can recommend that because it only gets confusing.

Darn ! Nakosis, you and I seem to have been exploring the same path with similar experiences resulting. As an empath who is experiencing an expanding consciousness state of being all minds become one mind. And, that one mind is the mind that I am exploring. I call that mind God, otherwise it is my mind and I am just waking up. Which then puts me on the path to self realization and I do not want to be self realized . There will always be a greater mind than mine that I am in union with, even if I have to create one . For better or worse, I refuse self realization. No matter what my senses tell me I refuse to believe that I am God. Utimately you end up an observer looking through two lenses. From there you can be self independent or you can share the experience with the supreme observer. And that for better or worse is what I choose to do . And it is turning out that you do not have to look through the two lenses (into what we perceive as creation). You can also look away from the two lenses and this supreme observer will show you and share with you its world/reality just for fun. Try explaining that one to others .

 

[Willamena]

To lable something "unknowable" limits one's ability to know. And God is knowable if one is willing to accept the existence of a reality that is beyond words.

What is the relationship you see between words and knowing that gives words this ability to limit?

 

[mystic64]

What is the relationship you see between words and knowing that gives words this ability to limit?

Willamena, I love the way that you smith words and you are a word smith for sure . Humm ? Well Willamena, you do raise and interesting point. There is the possibility that it is not the fault of the words and that the fault may lie with the person that is using the words. More correct would be to say, "I have not the words to explain or discribe what it is that I am experiencing." The language of the science of physics is a mathamatical language because non mathamatical languages do not have the words to discribe the phenomenum that the science of physics is attempting to discribe. And sometimes if that language comes up short, then new words are created and defined. If you asked a physist to explain quantum spin using words from the english language he/she would say that it can not truely be explained using words from the english language. So therefore, if two or more mystics have the same experience and they agree to the definitions of the words used to discribe this experience, then a word limitation would not exist. I stand corrected . More proper would be to say, "I have not the words to truly discribe the experience." At the same time if I am talking to a mystic that has a functional grasp of the english language and that has had the same experience as I have had, we then do have the words to discribe the experience when talking to each other even though others would not understand what we are saying.

Maybe ?

 

[morphesium]

why did you accept it?

faith

"faith=> strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".
that was some dictionary meaning simply quoted here.

How does this make sense( Why "One God")?

logic

To count an object, one has to be sure that there is a mathematical property associated with the object which enables us to count those kind of objects. for example, we can count apples and grapes, but can we count space, water, etc; NO (these have uncountable property). we say little space, some water etc but not one water (one liter of water is different - it is the liter we count). Even there are things that cannot be included in any of the above categories. we have waves and alternating currents whose properties are explained with the help of complex numbers. We have electrons that exhibits wave like and particle like nature at the same time, can exist at two or more different places at the same time and so on.
What I am asking is when we say one God, How do we know that God has the mathematical property which enables us to count God. what i am saying isn't it more truthful or more elegant to say just "God" than "one God"

What are its properties? (volume, weight, mass etc,).

supernatural by definition, (he created volume, weight and mass among some other useful stuff)

So, we are not sure of its physical properties, so what about its mathematical analogy- mathematical properties?

What was/is its necessity?

love

I appreciate this.

any hard ones?

not much. Thanks for the answer.
Best regards.

 

[morphesium]

Why is going to Heaven important?

Heaven, hell, God, spirits, Jinn and Satan etc, these are areas in which religion can take much control on people who otherwise are religion-less. Even though these are not according to common sense ( How did the religions came to know about these?) rituals, practices and preachings makes it a hardbound faith.

 

[morphesium]

It makes me sense to me when I look at the beautiful photos of earth from space. We really aren't that big, in fact we are in space and that space I believe is God. It's impossible to put a face on God.

Thankyou for the answer. I too agree with this.
Best regards.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"faith=> strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".
that was some dictionary meaning simply quoted here.

in other words, acknowledging faith is to acknowledge personal belief, that we can't prove something, we could be wrong. Not to acknowledge our faith is blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself..

So, we are not sure of its physical properties, so what about its mathematical analogy- mathematical properties?

well what are the mathematical properties of purpose, desire, love? they are singular individual entities existing in individual consciousness.. so I'd apply that rationale to a singular God, no way to be sure of course, that's what faith is for!

 

[Ouroboros]

It makes me sense to me when I look at the beautiful photos of earth from space. We really aren't that big, in fact we are in space and that space I believe is God. It's impossible to put a face on God.

This is a self-portrait of God:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b65ec4710641.jpg

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's a lot of ifs. If God were omnipresent, then heaven would be everywhere. He wouldn't need messengers. He wouldn't employ prophets and apostles. The God of the Bible is not omnipresent. The meaning of "omnipotent" gets more and more exaggerated with each new astronomical discovery.

The only real if is "if" God exists, and that's a 50/50 proposition.

Where does it say in the Bible that God isn't omnipresent. According to Genesis, God created the heavens and earth.

How can it mean the power to create a universe, when no ancient prophet even had a concept of a universe?

Most very likely (in fact I'd call it a lock), because the God of the Bible and what It was supposed to have said is a complete set of fabrications, as will all revealed religions.

It is more likely that "omnipotent" to a Jew of 600 BC, was a somewhat fuzzy concept without known limits. To conclude from this that God doesn't have limits, is to banish him to the realm of unreal things. All real things are defined by their limits.

As you can see, I'm not using the Bible or it's authors as a reference, so I'm not concluding anything from it. And if God created the universe, looking at that alone, then we don't even come close to understanding the concept of divine limits if there be any. We can make a lot of speculations about God based on assuming that It exists and why It would have created the universe, but limits isn't one of them.

 

[psychoslice]

Why "one God"?.......why any god ?.