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

Here is again my mental construct of God of God:
"God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient."

That says the role of God in the world He created, but it does not exclude everything else that is God.

You Chester say: "because of sin and ever since man has be constructing is own ideas, which like yours, are faulty, error filled and corrupt."


Dear Chester, let you present your mental construct of God, do it in the least number of words you can manage.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Pachomius

any construct we have is immaterial to the Constructs of God Almighty.

I am not talking thoughts, I am talking the full knowledge of all God's Mind, Heart and Soul that is revealed in Creation for us to form true constructs based on God's Truth.

However, that was all spoiled and man separated from God because of sin and ever since man has be constructing is own ideas, which like yours, are faulty, error filled and corrupt.

Have you considered Pachomius that there exist two viewpoints:

(A) The viewpoint of the outer (aka man). That "God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient."

(B) The viewpoint of inner - that everything is one. Paul stated in Galatians 3:28 "All is one". In that "all is one" scenario the label of God and the label of self becomes nonsensical. That inner perhaps seeing (A) as a corrupted mental construct of what is.

In my imaginations, I see God as an unbelievably powerful Creator that split His own awareness (I AM) into trillions of trillions of trillions of eyes. Giving himself to us, so we can witness His glory though Him and with Him. Each eye. being the seat of our pure awareness, has no beginning nor end. Each eye rebuilding a new consciousness (mind) within three days of the old expiring. My imaginations really cannot grasp a God that powerful. Certainly Glory must be the name of the God in my imaginations.

Yet my imaginations being true or not, have no meaning to our spiritual nature, It see's everything as it is without using mind to define (aka corrupt) the witnessing of what is. That is not to say that mind itself is a barricade to God. But there may be a point in which we must strive beyond the limitations of mind to witness the absolute truth.

I suspect there are two realizations in our path to that absolute truth.

The first realization - I as man am nothing
The second realization - I as soul am everything.

Thus the awakening isn't a destruction of self. But the expansion of self to encompass all there is, An expansion of consciousness alluded by the 144,000 in revelation and the 144,000 petals in Hinduism. Yet all that is meaningless to the soul that only desires to fulfill the will of the Father. Which in effect becomes our own will in that one consciousness. I have been given a small taste of that one consciousness to confirm its existence but not long enough taste to confirm that anything else I write is true.

Dear Glend, what a tremendous enlightenment you make to my knowledge, generally I concur with you on your exposition below.

I seem to recall that somewhere here or elsewhere I say that God is the medium for our existence, so that we exist in Him, just like ocean dwelling fish, they dwell in the water that is their God.

originally posted by: glend
Have you considered Pachomius that there exist two viewpoints:

(A) The viewpoint of the outer (aka man). That "God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient."

(B) The viewpoint of inner - that everything is one. Paul stated in Galatians 3:28 "All is one". In that "all is one" scenario the label of God and the label of self becomes nonsensical. That inner perhaps seeing (A) as a corrupted mental construct of what is.

In my imaginations, I see God as an unbelievably powerful Creator that split His own awareness (I AM) into trillions of trillions of trillions of eyes. Giving himself to us, so we can witness His glory though Him and with Him. Each eye. being the seat of our pure awareness, has no beginning nor end. Each eye rebuilding a new consciousness (mind) within three days of the old expiring. My imaginations really cannot grasp a God that powerful. Certainly Glory must be the name of the God in my imaginations.

Yet my imaginations being true or not, have no meaning to our spiritual nature, It see's everything as it is without using mind to define (aka corrupt) the witnessing of what is. That is not to say that mind itself is a barricade to God. But there may be a point in which we must strive beyond the limitations of mind to witness the absolute truth.

I suspect there are two realizations in our path to that absolute truth.

The first realization - I as man am nothing
The second realization - I as soul am everything.

Thus the awakening isn't a destruction of self. But the expansion of self to encompass all there is, An expansion of consciousness alluded by the 144,000 in revelation and the 144,000 petals in Hinduism. Yet all that is meaningless to the soul that only desires to fulfill the will of the Father. Which in effect becomes our own will in that one consciousness. I have been given a small taste of that one consciousness to confirm its existence but not long enough taste to confirm that anything else I write is true.

The classic case being Anselm's demonstration that a "greatest possible thing" must exist by logical necessity, which doesn't actually give any information about him beyond "greatest possible". -Dis

I see that Anselm should have transited from the thought in his mind on "that a 'greatest possible thing' must exist by logical necessity," should have transited himself from his mind to the world outside his mind, and search for the "greatest possible thing" in the world outside his mind.

So, if I were Anselm, and sought for the greatest possible thing outside my mind, I would have noticed that all things I met are transient things, i.e. with a beginning and an ending, and wherefore they transient things inevitably implicate the existence of an entity that is permanent and self-existent and thus the creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

And pray, where is this permanent and self-existent entity?

Where else but everywhere, for it cannot be otherwise than that all transient things exist in God as the medium of their being, that means we live and move and have our being in Him, like ocean fishes all live and move and have their being in the ocean God.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Pachomius
You mean this?

Yes, there are two ways of knowing God, but to my mind reason does not give sufficient knowledge of God. Philosophical "proofs of God" can perhaps show that a God exists, but they don't show what kind of God exists. The classic case being Anselm's demonstration that a "greatest possible thing" must exist by logical necessity, which doesn't actually give any information about him beyond "greatest possible". The real problem is that the reality of God is so much greater than any human mind, that no human mind can possibly contain it. That is the original meaning of the word "incomprehensible", which theology applies to God.

More than a decade ago, a philospher on this site challenged Christians to supply a definition of their God, and the answer I gave is below;

+++ +++

Let's make it a really trinitarian one;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Dear Dis, I have what I call a revision of Anselm's argument on God existing because He is an entity most perfect, wherefore He must have existence, otherwise He would not be the most perfect entity.

Please see my post at the end of page 7, and I invite you to do a critique on my revision.

a reply to: Pachomius
You mean this? As previosuly posted.

More than a decade ago, a philospher on this site challenged Christians to supply a definition of their God, and the answer I gave is below;

+++ +++

Let's make it a really trinitarian one;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

That’s a masterpiece mate.

I find it feasible to extend communication to manifest as light,the assumption being that light is information. Any thoughts about this assumption?

a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: Dalamax
Light on its own doesn't convey much information to the average human mind. This is about communication with people. The main medium of communication appears to be through thoughts, including but not limited to those expressed in audible words.

a reply to: DISRAELI

First you have to understand what is the true LIGHT.

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

Don't worry : maybe the right definition will come to you during your next 10000 guesses !!