How I know God exists by dividing existence into permanent existence and transient existence.

Dear Dis, you say: "A Monistic God would not be communicating with and relating to parts of himself."

I think you are taking God to be composed of parts, God is a part-less total entity, so when He uses Himself to create us, He doesn't get to be less total, and the distinction between Him and us is genuine as real as the distinction between the cause God and us the effect: So He communicates with us and not with Himself.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Pachomius
And the continuation of my argument is that bringing the world into existence "out of himself" results in Monism, because there is no real distinction then between God and the world.
But revelation cannot work with Monism, because revelation is the result of communication between God and the world, setting up a relationship between God and the world.
A Monistic God would not be communicating with and relating to parts of himself. So there has to be a distinction. WIthout taking the distinction so far that it becomes Dualism. We need that half-way point.

a reply to: Pachomius
No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that God communicates with us, which is what "revelation" means, and he would NOT be communicating with us if we were a part of himself. And I'm saying that "using himself to create us" has the effect of making us part of himself, which is why it is not compatible with revelation. Under your assumption, we are not distinct from him, and that is Monism.

I can see the danger that we're going to start going round in circles, and I think the above is the clearest explanation that I can manage.

You mean, dear Dis, first you admit that man is created by God, but after man's creation he is independent of God, i.e. can continue to exist outside God, and beyond God's sustenance: and that is the only way God and man can communicate bilaterally?

And that is the doctrine in your knowledge of God by way of revelation?

From my knowledge of God by reason, I come to know that man is created by God, God using Himself as the material for His creation of man, and man continues to depend on God, and he is in a way a part of God, the transient part - the moment God does not sustain man, man goes out of existence, and God is still as always in His totality of permanent self-existence.

No wonder, dear Dis, you have need of a lot of revelation.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Pachomius
No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that God communicates with us, which is what "revelation" means, and he would NOT be communicating with us if we were a part of himself. And I'm saying that "using himself to create us" has the effect of making us part of himself, which is why it is not compatible with revelation. Under your assumption, we are not distinct from him, and that is Monism.

I can see the danger that we're going to start going round in circles, and I think the above is the clearest explanation that I can manage.

originally posted by: Pachomius
You mean, dear Dis, first you admit that man is created by God, but after man's creation he is independent of God, i.e. can continue to exist outside God, and beyond God's sustenance: and that is the only way God and man can communicate bilaterally?

No, I do NOT mean that man is independent of God. I have said, more than once, that creation in general and man in particular is distinct and yet dependent. Only then is there any point in communication, which is what "revelation" means.

But I have said this already, more than once.

But revelation cannot work with Monism, because revelation is the result of communication between God and the world, setting up a relationship between God and the world.
A Monistic God would not be communicating with and relating to parts of himself.

So, as I thought, we are starting to go round in circles. You raise some point which shows that you have not understood what I said previously, and I deal with it by re-posting what I said previously (because I'm not going to waste time thinking up new ways of putting it).

As Doctor Johnson said, "I have given you a reason , sir. I am not obliged to give you an understanding."

I've been on this site long enough to understand that "getting the last word" has no value in a forum context, where all the posts are visible, so if you're going to insist on getting the last word in I might just leave you to it.

Dear Dis, you say: "I've been on this site long enough to understand that "getting the last word" has no value in a forum context, where all the posts are visible, so if you're going to insist on getting the last word in I might just leave you to it."


No, I am not into getting the last word here, just to get clear on our differences.

For you, God can create something from nothing, for me God cannot.

Is that correct, I mean that I get you correctly on what you believe, namely, God does create something from nothing, and you get me correctly, that God cannot create something from nothing.

And it is your belief, while in my case it is from reason - is that correct also?

And that is why there are so many mysteries in your religion, while in mine there are no mysteries - is that correct?

a reply to: Pachomius

The Bible never says God created everything from nothing. That would be a DOCTRINE OF MEN.

Why? men fail to rightly divide or study the word of Truth correctly i.e. Disraeli's Writings. Men assume to much.

When God starts his 6 day work of making the earth habitable for his next creation (also not from nothing) Man, he already had the Earth, Deep Space, and Fountains of waters to work with. Because of Isa 14, Ezk 28 and Job 38 we know there was a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and the Flood of Gen 1:2.

That's right there are two floods in the Bible. Men simply over look the flood of Gen 1:2 because they want ALL of GODS CREATION to START when man was created. Men think to highly of themselves.

a reply to: Deetermined

BY the word of the LORD were things made. Precisely, they were made by his Word not by Nothing. Words are something as is the WORD.

The issue you seem to have is that you start creation at day on Gen 1:3-5, while I believe there was an earth, deep space and Fountains of Waters at the time of Gen 1:3, Though one of those fountains was already emptied onto and around the earth as you see in Gen 1:2 when the earth is in water and out of the water. What happened the rebellion of Lucifer in exalting a throne he had no right too, thinking it was his own throne. When iniquity was found in him that is when God released his judgement on Lucifer (Satan) and his angles by destroying the throne, the city if was in and the earth upon which is was build by Lucifer.

The earth has always been the place God the Father wanted to exalt his son. Lucifer ruined that, now you have to wait for the new Earth after the Millennial Kingdom. However to keep is words God will allow Israel to rule the earth and Jesus the Messiah on the throne by allowing the 1,000 reign of Christ with no Satanic influence.

a reply to: Peeple

Ask an insect to tell you his favorite color and why?


It can't.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Deetermined

BY the word of the LORD were things made. Precisely, they were made by his Word not by Nothing. Words are something as is the WORD.

It is wording (naming) that makes it seem as if there is separation (separate things).
There is no thing.


This is the first verse of the Tao te Ching:
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

On Him alone we depend for everything; our dependence on other things is in reality dependence on Him, for they are nothing but His appearances.

The eye perceives nothing but Him; only He is to be known.
We are His; by Him we exist, and by
Him we are governed; and we are, at all times and in all states, in His presence.
Ibn 'Arabi.

There is no existence save His existence. ... This means that the existence of the beggar is His existence and the existence of the sick is His existence. Now, when this is admitted, it is acknowledged that all existence is His existence; and that the existence of all created things, both accidents and substances, is His existence; and when the secret of one particle of the atoms is clear, the secret of all created things, both outward and inward, is clear; and you do not see in this world or the next, anything except God.
Ibn 'Arabi.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


SO IN SHORT, YOU ARE "GOD".

Yet all we see from our physical eyes is CORRUPT. And so with the teaching you just shared you have done this

Ro 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things

You just created an image of God in the likeness of these things. or at best you made man, beast and creeping things God.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yet all we see from our physical eyes is CORRUPT.

Do not include me in your 'we'......you speak for yourself..... who is this 'we'?

A flower is corrupt??

So you are saying that you don't see beauty.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Off thy meds I see.

Dear Itis, I had always thought you were a Hindu in India, but now it seems you are an adherent of Islam.

What does Islam say about creation ex Nihilo i.e. creation from nothing, so that nothing is the material God uses to make everything He does make?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
There is no existence save His existence. ... This means that the existence of the beggar is His existence and the existence of the sick is His existence. Now, when this is admitted, it is acknowledged that all existence is His existence; and that the existence of all created things, both accidents and substances, is His existence; and when the secret of one particle of the atoms is clear, the secret of all created things, both outward and inward, is clear; and you do not see in this world or the next, anything except God.
Ibn 'Arabi.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

"Yet all we see from our physical eyes is CORRUPT"

What if Pachomius is correct. That everything that is, is made in the image of God. So that in which you are really calling corrupt. Is the image of God. Perhaps that is reasoning behind "judge not lest ye be judged". If we set ourselves as separate to that image. We are condemning no-one but ourselves.

Is the image of God corrupt. Or is it the mind that see's corruption, corrupt. Perhaps I need go back on my pills as well.

Okay, everyone, do you know about this question, "Why Is there God instead of no God?"

Who are asking?

I am asking, what about you guys here?

My answer is because we humans are transient entities, we have a beginning at our conception in our mother's womb, and an ending at our death - from womb to tomb.

What about you guys here, what is your answer?

originally posted by: Pachomius
How I know God exists by dividing existence into permanent existence and transient existence.

By permanent existence I mean an existence that cannot ever become extinct i.e. not exist anymore, there is only one example of permanent existence, namely, God.

By transient existence I mean an existence that has a beginning and an ending, for example, you and I, we have a beginning with our conception in our mother's womb, and an ending at our death.

How does transient existence lead to the existence of God?

Simple: Because transient existence inevitably implicates the existence of God, the permanent and self-existent agent.

Wherefore, my definition of God is the following: God is the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

a reply to: glend

but Creation is separate from the creator even if all matter came from him.

The bible says both man and the all of Creation is corrupt. If true then Pachomius saying is corrupt and not to be taken seriously if it disagrees with the scriptures.

"but Creation is separate from the creator even if all matter came from him." -Chester

You are correct there!


"The bible says both man and the all of Creation is corrupt. If true then Pachomius saying is corrupt and not to be taken seriously if it disagrees with the scriptures." -Chester

Your statement above is so very broad and too categorical, please rewrite it.

Do it this way: I seem to know that the Bible mentions both man and creation are corrupt.

Then you have to state what is the meaning of corrupt for yourself, from my part I will say corrupt means sinful.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: glend

but Creation is separate from the creator even if all matter came from him.

The bible says both man and the all of Creation is corrupt. If true then Pachomius saying is corrupt and not to be taken seriously if it disagrees with the scriptures.

Dear Itis, I am still waiting eagerly for your reply to my post addressed to you, are you Hindu or Islamist, and what about your take on creation ex Nihilo?

===============================

posted on May, 21 2022 @ 10:58 AM

Dear Itis, I had always thought you were a Hindu in India, but now it seems you are an adherent of Islam.

What does Islam say about creation ex Nihilo i.e. creation from nothing, so that nothing is the material God uses to make everything He does make?


originally posted by: Itisnowagain
There is no existence save His existence. ... This means that the existence of the beggar is His existence and the existence of the sick is His existence. Now, when this is admitted, it is acknowledged that all existence is His existence; and that the existence of all created things, both accidents and substances, is His existence; and when the secret of one particle of the atoms is clear, the secret of all created things, both outward and inward, is clear; and you do not see in this world or the next, anything except God.
Ibn 'Arabi.

originally posted by: Pachomius
Dear Itis, I had always thought you were a Hindu in India, but now it seems you are an adherent of Islam.

What does Islam say about creation ex Nihilo i.e. creation from nothing, so that nothing is the material God uses to make everything He does make?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
There is no existence save His existence. ... This means that the existence of the beggar is His existence and the existence of the sick is His existence. Now, when this is admitted, it is acknowledged that all existence is His existence; and that the existence of all created things, both accidents and substances, is His existence; and when the secret of one particle of the atoms is clear, the secret of all created things, both outward and inward, is clear; and you do not see in this world or the next, anything except God.
Ibn 'Arabi.