Thread: The Misunderstandings Of God

How about this:

The universe is infinte.

Makes a hell of alot more sence for the universe to pop into existance then that is it for some super-duper being to pop into existance.

Originally Posted by Neruo

How about this:

The universe is infinte.

Makes a hell of alot more sence for the universe to pop into existance then that is it for some super-duper being to pop into existance.
[/b]

i seriously doubt that you understand the concept of infinite...

it doesn't matter if the god is infinite or the universe is infinite... either way you have no way of knowing which is which.

but you know everything... so it's cool.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Makes a hell of alot more sence for the universe to pop into existance then that is it for some super-duper being to pop into existance.
[/b]

This sentence is a prime example of the misunderstandings I'm talking about.

First, the idea that God could "pop" into existence. This is an example of applying ideas that only relate to the corporeal world to things outside of it. Temporal succession has no place outside of this world, including a beginning and end in time. Now, of course one can use temporal succession as an analogy for something that transcends time (e.g. creation), but ultimately it will be flawed. It is only useful to help one understand a hierarchy of being, but it must be kept in mind that it does not happen "in time" (this is where you get such misinformed ideas as the creation of the world happening a few thousand years ago). You cannot apply the same limits of the corporeal world to worlds where those limits do not exist.

Second, the idea that God is a "super-duper being". This I already explained. The Infinite cannot be a being because it would be limited by that which defines it as a being.

The problem with calling the universe Infinite (as I am assuming you are referring to the corporeal universe alone, an idea only known to modernity), is that it just simply is not Infinite. If you give limits to something, such as reducing everything to the material level, you cannot call it Infinite. Now if you are referring to the universe as containing all (in the traditional sense: not just the material world, but also subtle and causal realms), then you are just using a different word for God. I have no problem with this, in fact I encourage it because of all the misconceptions that come with "God". This is why I suggest calling it universal possibility or the Infinite.

If I understood correctly you just described something I call nature...

Nature is most commonly just the overall term used to describe the workings of the physical universe that we live in; the natural world.

I believe that Syz is referring to the idea of something that rises above the workings of the physical universe; something that is not bound by the ideas of consistent temporal drift as our physical bodies and the universe around us is (at least our perception of it.) The physical universe is not all possibilities, it is merely the currently actuated possibility; the universe that we exist in during this very instant is just a coordinate on a great plane of limitless possibilities.

So if Syz says that God is all possibilities, then it is being said that God is every possible coordinate or registry point that existence could ever hope to occupy.

Though I would venture so far as to say that there is independent existence within the system. But that depends on what you are deeming "existence." If all things are possible, then do not all things actually have the potential to exist? And if existence is based on current actuality, then existence is merely the chance happening that the coordinate or registry point that one is a part of is actuated.

The question is, though, who is actuating them? If God is the Infinite, then does that mean that God is actuating them at will? That doesn't make much sense, because if God is the Infinite, then he wouldn't be transversing them, he would rather be them.


It seems logical that independent entities would be actuating points at will. Now, if one perceives themselves as actually being a certain aspect of the Infinite - say, a human being on Earth in a certain time period - then the entity would actuate itself from the vantage point of the human, essentially in a temporal fashion which is rational for the human that the entity is projecting itself into.

Now, how would this entity which can traverse the Infinite at will even attempt to convince itself that it is actually a human being in a certain temporal era? By deliberately sealing off all other parts of it's existence from itself during the points in which it was posing as the human being. I suppose a human could describe them as "memories," but the other part of the entities existence would most definitely supercompose such a term, as memories indicate recalling points that occured in a logical temporal fashion in the relative negative position of the humans temporal drift.

Now, what does this mean?

I'll let you consider the implications.

(Eek, sorry for getting off topic.)

I understand it, I always tell people God is everything that can and will happen in past present or future

He is also everything that can't happen in our past, present or future.

If one is labeling the Infinite as God.

Originally Posted by ccrinbama

He is also everything that can't happen in our past, present or future.

If one is labeling the Infinite as God.
[/b]

agreed

Originally Posted by jacobo

i seriously doubt that you understand the concept of infinite...

it doesn't matter if the god is infinite or the universe is infinite... either way you have no way of knowing which is which.

but you know everything... so it's cool.
[/b]

You know more then I know, for you believe in 'the universe' / 'infinity' + god. Because really, all say 'god is everything', you could just as well say: 'matter and laws of physics are everything'.

I don't care if in your silly word games you use god, the einteinian god to name infinity, but if you are believing the crap from the old and new testament, and tie it up with your simple 'name game', then you should read some books on evoltution and the universe and such.

Sure, call the universe and time 'god' as much as you want, but don't call it the Christian god, for, we all know, is a bunch of bad written fiction.

Originally Posted by syzygy

God is the Infinite:

God contains all possibilities, and could thus be called Universal possibility or the Infinite. Without a principle something can not exist, therefore everything that exists depends on the Infinite, the principle that makes something possible.
God is not a being:

A being is something that is distinct with limits. If God was a being, It would be limited and thus not the Infinite. In this case, there would necessitate something greater than God, creating an infinite chain of higher beings. Since the Infinite contains all beings, it must transcend the distinction between being and non-being.
You cannot know God through analytical knowledge:

Sometimes people attach human ideas to God to make It more understandable. One must remember, however, that any conception one has of God is not complete, and never can be. This includes all anthropomorphism or qualities such as "good" or "judgmental". God only appears this way to the person viewing It, and not in reality. Since the human mind can only understand those things which fall within the limits of its being, it can never truly "know" the Infinite by analytical thought alone. The only way to truly know God is through intuitive knowledge because in reality, there is no difference between "you" and God. All learned knowledge is dependent on space and time for its meaning, and as soon as one transcends those limitations, it has no real meaning.
God alone is real:

There is no independent existence. This can be made clear to oneself by trying to find the self. When one doesn't think about it, they appear to be an individual, but as soon as one goes looking for the individual self, it cannot be found. The idea of separateness is an illusion created by the mind. Everything within the limits of manifestation can only have a relative existence and anything independent of its principle can only have an illusory existence.

*Note: I capitalize Infinite to distinguish it from any thoughts one might have in relation to mathematical infinity, which is only indefinite at best. Infinite in the truest sense of the word is that which has absolutely no limits, and thus contains all. Being "unlimited" within a set of limits, such as a series of numbers, is indefinite because anything which comes from the finite cannot "become" Infinite, it can only continue on indefinitely (beyond our understanding), yet always maintaining the limits which give it existence.
[/b]

Someone's been reading up on their Descartes

Don't mix that 'god is infinity' stuff with 'god had sex with a virgin that pooped out some dude that want Meant to die on a torture device'. It is really lame to mix an 'einsteinian god', einstein to used god for a methafor for 'everything', with a fictious god. Most people that use your temonology of 'god', the god as infinity and everything, don't even believe in the Christian god.

Damn those Christians with their monopoly on that word. Lets call the Christian god 'Harold' for now on.

the problem i have is were did god come from? supposedlly he just was always there but eh if you think about that alone its hard but, if you can accept that everything else starts to make a lot of sense

Originally Posted by duzzyman

the problem i have is were did god come from? supposedlly he just was always there but eh if you think about that alone its hard but, if you can accept that everything else starts to make a lot of sense
[/b]

If you accept that the flying spagetti monster made us all, and he did, then everything get way more clear. Also, once you accept that people arn't Meant to know how physics work -afterall, it is my pasty-lord that is making the birds hoover in the air- , the world becomes so much better and clearer.

And that feels good, so it HAS to be true.

Right?


RIGHT?

You argument = failure. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Don't mix that 'god is infinity' stuff with 'god had sex with a virgin that pooped out some dude that want Meant to die on a torture device'. It is really lame to mix an 'einsteinian god', einstein to used god for a methafor for 'everything', with a fictious god. Most people that use your temonology of 'god', the god as infinity and everything, don't even believe in the Christian god.

Damn those Christians with their monopoly on that word. Lets call the Christian god 'Harold' for now on.
[/b]

Actually, Einstein himself was committed to the Judeo-Christian tradition, although he had a distrust for all Biblical and religious authority. Instead of the typical 'personal' God, Einstein called for a 'super-personal' God. This distinction, among other things he took from Spinoza - the idea that you cannot apply human qualities to God. But where he split from Spinoza was in his pantheism; Einstein still held that God was transcendent to the physical world.

So Einstein is actually a perfect example of someone who realized the Judeo-Christian God is the Infinite, but not in the sense of those 'Haroldites' who claim self-appointed authority to religious knowledge. This is where you, Neruo, along with many others have their gripe with the Judeo-Christian God - with those people who claim to have authority over religion and the Bible to use for personal gains. Do not confuse their interpretation of the Bible with one which co-exists with the idea of the Infinite.

For the sake of example, I will use yours - that "god had sex with a virgin that pooped out some dude that was meant to die on a torture device". Taken literally, this makes little to no sense. But taken in a spiritual sense makes perfect sense. Christ is not a person - only symbolized by one (which is not to say that the person did not exist, just that it does not depend on that) - but is the Divine Principle within all of us. Jesus, the man, is just an example of someone who realized this Principle within himself and acted upon it. The virgin birth is to be seen in the spiritual sense - that Mary and Joseph were spiritual pure. Death on the cross and the resurrection are symbols (albeit rather violent ones) of the death of one's lower nature and the 'resurrection' of the Divine Principle within. The 'second coming' of Christ is the realization of the Principle within each person - something which has to be done on an individual basis, not an external event! These are just a few examples of interpreting the Bible spiritually (it is after all a spiritual book&#33.

Originally Posted by Neruo

the problem i have is were did god come from? supposedlly he just was always there but eh if you think about that alone its hard but, if you can accept that everything else starts to make a lot of sense
[/b]

Asking the question "where did God come from" is asking the wrong question. For God to be God, It cannot be bound by the limits of the physical world, and thus is not subject to the question of being caused. God is the 'unmoved mover' - that which allows everything else to change, but which is Itself unchanging (Infinite).

Excepts from Neruo's Posts

I don't care if in your silly word games you use god
-----
It is really lame to mix an 'einsteinian god'
-----
but don't call it the Christian god, for, we all know, is a bunch of bad written fiction.
-----
Damn those Christians
------
And that feels good, so it HAS to be true.

Right?


RIGHT?

You argument = failure. Thank you.
--------
[/b]

Please read your text before you submit it. Because it reads in the tone of "Bickering Child". Respect what others say and believe, if you expect the same in return. Otherwise it comes off as pompous and irritating. (Your icon displaying OMFG, and Lazy as Fuck doesnt exactly display moral fiber either, yet you post so often in the religion forum...)

Anyone can respect what you have to say. Just act like your Mama taught you some manners.

Originally Posted by WhiteUnit

Excepts from Neruo's Posts
Please read your text before you submit it. Because it reads in the tone of "Bickering Child". Respect what others say and believe, if you expect the same in return. Otherwise it comes off as pompous and irritating. (Your icon displaying OMFG, and Lazy as Fuck doesnt exactly display moral fiber either, yet you post so often in the religion forum...)

Anyone can respect what you have to say. Just act like your Mama taught you some manners.
[/b]

Ahhhh, yeahhh, I mean, getting in place by someone that only takes part of a post, I should listen to you. OH WAIT NO, A SECRET MESSAGE IN YOUR POST!!11:

Excepts from WhiteUnit's Posts:

(....) I (....) AM (....) SA (....) TAN (....)

OH NOES.

wt fluff?

Originally Posted by WhiteUnit

Excepts from Neruo's Posts
Please read your text before you submit it. Because it reads in the tone of "Bickering Child". Respect what others say and believe, if you expect the same in return. Otherwise it comes off as pompous and irritating. (Your icon displaying OMFG, and Lazy as Fuck doesnt exactly display moral fiber either, yet you post so often in the religion forum...)

Anyone can respect what you have to say. Just act like your Mama taught you some manners.
[/b]

so u have 2 fufill your defintion of moral fiber to post in the religion forum?
if anyone is at fualt I'd say it was keeper for these continous posts trying to convert non-christians
what does he seek to gain?
ive been on the forum lyk a week and ahve come across a good 5 topics

Imran

Originally Posted by Neruo

Ahhhh, yeahhh, I mean, getting in place by someone that only takes part of a post, I should listen to you. OH WAIT NO, A SECRET MESSAGE IN YOUR POST!!11:

Excepts from WhiteUnit's Posts:

(....) I (....) AM (....) SA (....) TAN (....)

OH NOES.
[/b]

...

ouch

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. Everyone knows people cant convert others.

Our problim is wiht people who dont take things seariusly

Originally Posted by imran_p

so u have 2 fufill your defintion of moral fiber to post in the religion forum?
if anyone is at fualt I'd say it was keeper for these continous posts trying to convert non-christians
what does he seek to gain?
ive been on the forum lyk a week and ahve come across a good 5 topics

Imran
[/b]

Im pretty sure Keeper is not on a plan of total conversion amongst those non-believer's. What I see is someone making a stand for what he believes in, just like everyone else. If you ask me Imran, you sound a little afraid.
Becuse that's not the first time I've seen you throw out the "OMG! he's trying to convert me and it's starting work.. OH ! the Pain.. I'm Melting , I'm Melting.. OH WHAT A WORLD, WHAT A WORLD".

And someone asked earlier where did GOD come from or how he was created or something along those lines.
Answer: He has always been, there was never a begining for GOD nor is there an End.

Originally Posted by Ne

Im pretty sure Keeper is not on a plan of total conversion amongst those non-believer's. What I see is someone making a stand for what he believes in, just like everyone else. If you ask me Imran, you sound a little afraid.
Becuse that's not the first time I've seen you throw out the "OMG! he's trying to convert me and it's starting work.. OH ! the Pain.. I'm Melting , I'm Melting.. OH WHAT A WORLD, WHAT A WORLD".
[/b]

Claiming that peope are afraid in Italic makes you look like a true bunghole. You are going past the argument right for someones pride. I mean we all know it isn't true, but in a world full of testosteron it's pretty uncool to accuse people of being 'afraid'.

That, and how can you be afraid of someone that can't spell 'Problim'. He's got a real problim if you ask me.

Originally Posted by WhiteUnit

Please read your text before you submit it. Because it reads in the tone of "Bickering Child". Respect what others say and believe, if you expect the same in return. Otherwise it comes off as pompous and irritating. (Your icon displaying OMFG, and Lazy as Fuck doesnt exactly display moral fiber either, yet you post so often in the religion forum...)

Anyone can respect what you have to say. Just act like your Mama taught you some manners.
[/b]

Y'know, I really don't respect a word Christians say. I don't respect Christian doctrine. I see no compelling reason to do so. Why should I endorse delusions?

hahaha
as much as i applaud your attempt to delve deep within my mind
u wer comepeltey off the mark
you honeslty think i feew poorly argued oints will convert me
o no, i jus see it as an attmept to pressurise ppl into somethng they have obviously rejected
God is force don most of us
if you bleieve it shws nothing
if you dont bleeive it shows that you have most probably spent a great deal of tym asking and researching the bigger questions and eventually come to your own personal conclusion.
you see an agnostic will not be converted by these arguments bcus an agnostic has heard them before and after hearing both sides of the argument has decidd that both are very very poor
you ssay God has always beent here and alays will be ther yes?
explain 2 me where we come by this knowledge except for a few poorly written, multiply inteproled books?
it seems to me, tht the atheists argument is a million tyms stornger yet he can never outright win, bcus it is impossible to have conclusive proof for the lack of something. If there is a god, he doesnt deserve worshipping
look at how he treats his creations
Natural disasters, disease, poverty
oh yes, how bloody nice of him
all I was saying is this is a religous forum for religous ebate, religion is more thn just trying 2 hammer into ever1s head tht god exists
with the same poor arguments tht have been regurgatated for years.
Imran