The "Beyond God" questions

reply to post by DISRAELI


Are we sure "universe" was translated right. In ancient days what was seen is what there was so I always took universe to mean the heavens (as interpreted by ancestors). Today we knows its a multi billion year old system with no end thus far (or beginning); still interpreting only what our senses allow us to understand so still quite inadequate but a a more expansive interpretation.

But to just stick with the question of "God created the universe" is compelling. I cant see there being a "why". That would be assuming a value system of some sort existed. That would be back to us thinking we are the center of the universe because we cannot know that value systems exist outside of what is on earth; other than wisdom provided by God. One could argue many things about that but its gets off topic.

To ask "how" is what I've been exploring since I was thinking physically coming into being. One can also say man created God as a way to bring ancient energy that we are made of to feel connected to closer but this question would be debated until the end of time and still be unlikely to be agreed upon. It's a personal choice that seems to always include the "why" (value systems; need for comfort and hope, etc).

To ask "what" created God is to assume an intelligent being applied thought to a plan. Again - that's egocentric but also quite human to do. There seems to be am intelligent design to the universe but not intelligence as we understand it (but we sure do try with science).

I think knowing the answer to the what, why, and how is exactly what each religion thinks they have a grip on. Maybe we are not supposed to have that answer yet - because it hasn't been provided or it is meant only for after we have left this level of existence. Imagine if we got the answer. How would the limited human mind organize such info? It would attempt to identify and integrate. The vastness of it would be diluted by the human experience.

Originally posted by Willtell
Nothing is separate from God. To suggest that something is, suggests a God with God, an impossibility.

Not at all.
The premise of Creation teaching is that what God made is distinct from God but dependent upon him.
That is how it is distinguished both from Monism (roughly, that God is everything) and Dualism (two independent elements).
You rightly reject Dualism, but you think I fall into it if I reject your Monism.
But there is a position in between.

God is smelling his own fart.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

The premise of Creation teaching is that what God made is distinct from God but dependent upon him.

Can what appears be primary to that which perceives? Or is it one thing?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by amsterdamn87

 

You need to be aware of the real context of this discussion.
Sceptics are prone to ask the question "Who made God?" (that is, did God have a cause) in response to the Biblical claim that God made the world.
They do this because the question "Who made God?" seems to be unanswerable, so they see it as a counter to the common argument that "There must be a God, because otherwise who made the world?"
At least two threads asking versions of that question were started on ATS only recently.
So this thread is pointing out that the question "What caused God?" or "Who made God?" has no meaning.
If the question has no meaning, then the fact that it can't be answered proves nothing.

On your second question;
It would not be possible for us to understand what is beyond the created world, for the same reason that a gallon of water can't be contained in a pint bottle.
Anything that's greater than the world is necessarily greater than our comprehension.
We can make words and attach them as labels, but that's not the same thing as genuine understanding.
So the condition "If we could understand..." doesn't arise.

it may assist to have a definition of "god" in this discussion. a possible definition is

centre everywhere, circumference nowhere.

so if you see a world, you dont see god, you dont see the centre.

man is circumference nowhere and centre "here". when his consciousness is unresticted/boundless, he knows, he simply knows. whatever attracts him in this "creation" will prevent him from knowing/being.
lets not forget when sceptics ask "who made god", that the honest answer is it (god) is a mental concept.
genuine understanding is not possible unless subject is object. this "state" i believe would be beyond/prior to, monism as there are none to observe it. probably referred to as samadhi/nirvana. this "state" also is the basis of all ethics/morality.

so

dualism (two co-eternal)
monism (one source and nature of them all)
one-and-a half-ism (distinct exnihilator dependent exnihilated)
nondualism (only brahman. the rest isnt an illusion isnt dependent , its false)

ascent from dualism though one-and-a half-ism to nondualism

The words God or god are so mundane. All religions have gods (some have goddesses). I don't subscribe to any religion. Religions are limiting. Spirituality is limitless.

The Universe...inconceivably vast...awesome...and humbling to ponder.

I believe the Universe is Alive and Conscious...the ubiquitous Cosmic Consciousness.

We are intelligent and conscious...We are a product of the Universe....Intelligence and Consciousness CANNOT evolve from non-intelligence and non-consciousness.

We are said to be comprised of body, mind and spirit.

The Universe is the body of Divinity, the Divine Mind is Cosmic Consciousness, and the Divine Spirit is within all Life.

Water has been mentioned several times. Consider the make-up of water, which is used in the sacred rites of all religions. A molecule of water, a liquid, is composed of two atoms of the gas Hydrogen and one atom of the gas Oxygen. In chemistry a mixture of two parts of the gas Hydrogen and one part of the gas Oxygen is very volatile. Introduce fire and the mixture explodes. However, combine the two gases in an electron bond and you have a liquid that can extinguish fire. Two volatile gases forming a liquid....vital to life....Very Mystical.

We are within the Divine...and the Divine is within us.

The Divine is the Great Mystery without solution.

But we do love to ponder it.

It is in our nature.

Peace

reply to post by arpgme

Provided it is understood that the God who sustains the world is also the Creator of it, and there is a distinction between them, I've never quite been able to fathom the difference between what is called panentheism and the theological position taken up by Augustine (see large quotation in post above).
Anyhow, the exact label is not important..
I'm taking my stance on the Biblical teaching as expounded by Augustine and theology since his time, that the relation between God and the world is that of Creation.
So God is not the world, and the world is not God..
That is the basic premise of this thread, which then sets itself to follow up the consequences.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Can what appears be primary to that which perceives?

If you have a child, then you exist long before the child is capable of perceiving you.
So the answer is obviously "Yes".

reply to post by orangutang

I refer you to my earlier post where i quoted my own definition of God, originating in adifferent discussion.

Originally posted by Dianec
Are we sure "universe" was translated right. In ancient days what was seen is what there was so I always took universe to mean the heavens (as interpreted by ancestors).

The wording in Genesis is that God made "the heavens and the earth".
But the Biblical writers could only write about what they knew about (which is why the Bible does not mention America), and they're not going to discuss a question which has not been raised.
So I'm sure that if they had realised how the universe could be extended beyond "heavens and earth", they would have extended the statement as well.

The statement at the beginning of John's gospel is that everything that was made was made by God through Christ.
So if we limit the scope of what God made to something less than "eveything", I believe we are reducing him

To ask "what" created God is to assume an intelligent being applied thought to a plan. Again - that's egocentric but also quite human to do. There seems to be am intelligent design to the universe but not intelligence as we understand it (but we sure do try with science).

On the question of the "personality" of God, my view is that the Bible presents God as one who communicates.
Part of the content of that communication is that God has a deliberate will.
I would say that having a will and an ability to communicate constitutes at least an analogy to personality.
Or it might be better to say that our human personality is a feeble imitation of his own.

I agree that we cannot understand God.
But if God tries to communicate himself to us, we can at least take that as a guideline to help our understanding.

reply to post by dude1

Whichever of those approaches is best, this thread is actually based on what happens if "one-and-a-half-ism" is taken as a premise.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Can what appears be primary to that which perceives?

If you have a child, then you exist long before the child is capable of perceiving you.
So the answer is obviously "Yes".

Seeing is happening now and what is being seen, is being seen now.

It happens presently together as one.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

But you exist before your child can see you, so there is a time when "seeing" is not happening at all.
In other words, there is something which is primary to "seeing".

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

But you exist before your child can see you, so there is a time when "seeing" is not happening at all.
In other words, there is something which is primary to "seeing".

Can you see through someone else's eyes?
You are the perceiver. Nothing can appear without you. And you can only assume otherwise.

You are presence and all arises within you.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Your child could make exactly the same reasoning about you, and he would be reasoning falsely.
"You could not exist before I was born, Daddy, because I would not have perceived you". The fallacy becomes obvious immediately.

THeologist Thomas Aquinas who wrote MASSIVE volumes of theological mental-masterbatory philosophical wrestling said something very interesting after having experienced God directly.

He then said that everything he wrote, "is like straw to the wind" in comparison to the direct experience.

So it's cool to wrestle with all this mentally, I have a few friends who have had glimpses of God (transcendent) just from wrestling with these questions......

But to really figure all this out, you have to experience it yourself..

There is a way to do so, there are blueprints out there

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Your child could make exactly the same reasoning about you, and he would be reasoning falsely.
"You could not exist before I was born, Daddy, because I would not have perceived you". The fallacy becomes obvious immediately.

Nothing can appear to exit outside of presence. You are seeing what is appearing - can you see anything that is not appearing? Can you prove there is anything else?

The thoughts will now tell you about all the 'other' things but where are they - are they appearing to you as anything but thought?

reply to post by dominicus

Fortunately I am not so much trying to understand God, as trying to deal with a misunderstanding which sometimes crops up.

Originally posted by will615

In fact God has been taken out of space.

Unfortunately, it seems God is being taken out of everything.

edit on 28-7-2013 by will615 because: (no reason given)

right...a mythical being taken out of everything....even though it's on our money, worshipped in congress at the beginning of each session, in tens of thousands of churches, Christians crosses numbering in the thousands planted on peoples property, all our leaders have to bless him at each public speech, special sections of newspapers devoted to worship of god, hundreds of radio stations devoted to god, religious TV networks.....right, taken out of everything...do you work for FOX NEWS?