Thread: God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Put this way, I can affirm that you're talking about a real aspect of Being (or rather, talking about all of Being in an accurate manner), but why then personify it as "God" and "He"? This approach to God itself refutes the notion of God as an entity: the character in the storybooks of the monotheistic religions. This God created the world only in the sense that a tree creates leaves, not as a potter shapes clay.

Why draw a face on the universe? Why not just let it be?

I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.

Infinity does not exist in any real system.

The word "Apparent infinity" is more fitting to reality.

"Apparently" to many that pill is hard to swallow for many people, but sorry, your "god" is not infinite

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Infinity does not exist in any real system.

The word "Apparent infinity" is more fitting to reality.

"Apparently" to many that pill is hard to swallow for many people, but sorry, your "god" is not infinite

Explain. What about the Absolute Reality? The nonlinear domain? Eternity? Existence?

"Apparent infinity" doesn't even apply here, since it is the infinite Reality that is obstructed by perception (not the reverse).

Originally Posted by really

Explain. What about the Absolute Reality? The nonlinear domain? Eternity? Existence?

"Apparent infinity" doesn't even apply here, since it is the infinite Reality that is obstructed by perception (not the reverse).

Can you elaborate on "Absolute Reality" and especially "nonlinear domain", if you by that mean a reality without space-time it is still not infinite.

Eternity is just as infinity.

Eternity can we translate to a potential infinity in time (Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been). It is impossible to know at any level whether existence will continue for an eternity, therefore it is not valid to say existence goes on in eternity, as many believe.

My main point is, reality (maybe your "absolute reality"?) is not infinite, but by human comprehension infinity is a describable word for what appears to be infinity.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Eternity can we translate to a potential infinity in time (Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been). It is impossible to know at any level whether existence will continue for an eternity, therefore it is not valid to say existence goes on in eternity, as many believe.

Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being. This ground of being is what the OP is calling God, and I am questioning the need to personify.

Originally Posted by really

I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.

You and I can find common ground philosophically, but an awful lot of God-worshipers are big on exclusivity. Isn't the character God in their stories a little difficult to reconcile with your Divine Reality? Doesn't the God concept, the personification of the eternal, obstruct the Grand Unity at least as often as it points the way?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Eternity is not a limitless amount of time--that usage is a bastardization deriving from a failure to grasp the concept. Eternity is outside or beyond time, the dualistic opposite of linear time. It is beginningless as well as endless. It is the fixed background against which time moves, the still pool upon which our reality reflects. Taken differently, eternity is the view on reality from which everything is accomplished and nothing changes, from which what we take for change is merely a reflection of the perpetual state of being. This ground of being is what the OP is calling God, and I am questioning the need to personify.

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

I don't understand (Well, I do) why so many people personify their "god", it is truly as humans make "god" in theirs image instead of the opposite, as they claim!

I hate to use the word god, it is so vague and the interpretation of the word is very subjective, and when the vast majority of humans use the word god it is a personified god, which don't exist as they think.

Well, AUM (Absolute Unbounded Manifold) is not a person. I think the need to personify such thing is partly because of the the heart-warming fuzzy feeling and partly because of the parental role it provides (psychological) and more.

Read this on the different infinities:

"Potential infinity - refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. For instance, the sequence of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
gets higher and higher, but it has no end; it never gets to infinity. Infinity is just an indication of a direction -- it's "somewhere off in the distance." Chasing this kind of infinity is like chasing a rainbow or trying to sail to the edge of the world -- you may think you see it in the distance, but when you get to where you thought it was, you see it is still further away. Geometrically, imagine an infinitely long straight line; then "infinity" is off at the "end" of the line. Analogous procedures are given by limits In calculus, whether they use infinity or not. For example, limx to 0 (sin x)/x = 1. This means that when we choose values of x that are closer and closer to zero, but never quite equal to zero, then (sin x)/x gets closer and closer to one.

Completed infinity, or actual infinity, is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done. For instance, let's put braces around that sequence mentioned earlier: { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
With this notation, we are indicating the set of all positive integers. This is just one object, a set. But that set has infinitely many members. By that I don't mean that it has a large finite number of members and it keeps getting more members. Rather, I mean that it already has infinitely many members.
We can also indicate the completed infinity geometrically. For instance, the below shows a one-to-one correspondence between points on an infinitely long line and points on a semicircle. There are no points for plus or minus infinity on the line, but it is natural to attach those "numbers" to the endpoints of the semicircle.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

I noted it as a false assumption underlying the failure to grasp eternity in the context of this discussion--perhaps I should have addressed it at greater length than simply pointing out that eternity is beginningless.

"Beginning" is a narrative contrivance: a literary device, a fiction. Existence only has a beginning if you're telling a story about it. There is no actual point where events are cleanly severed from their causes so that they may 'begin,' even if it is often convenient to speak as if it were so. The ordered march of events we perceive is a manifestation of the eternal; there is only one Now, which always has been and always will be.

It's always doing this: us, all of it.

Spoiler for heaven:

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, and so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly
The same.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be so much fun.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I noted it as a false assumption underlying the failure to grasp eternity in the context of this discussion--perhaps I should have addressed it at greater length than simply pointing out that eternity is beginningless.

"Beginning" is a narrative contrivance: a literary device, a fiction. Existence only has a beginning if you're telling a story about it. There is no actual point where events are cleanly severed from their causes so that they may 'begin,' even if it is often convenient to speak as if it were so. The ordered march of events we perceive is a manifestation of the eternal; there is only one Now, which always has been and always will be.

It's always doing this: us, all of it.

Well, eternity has more than one meaning:

1. (uncountable) Existence without end, infinite time.
2. (countable) A period of time which extends infinitely far into the future.
3. (metaphysical) The remainder of time that elapses after death.
4. (informal, hyperbolic) A comparatively long time.

And some use the word for timelessness.

The beginning is not at all fiction, but it requires a lengthy layout to explain it probably.

But again, from a human perspective it might be easier to grasp an existence without beginning. The concepts we are talking about are so blurred to us that much of what we are saying is the same, but from different perspectives.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Can you elaborate on "Absolute Reality" and especially "nonlinear domain", if you by that mean a reality without space-time it is still not infinite.

The nonlinear domain is the field that prevails beyond the linear world, so it is infinite in the sense that it is beyond space and time. The term is often used characteristic to the nature of consciousness and could be said to be the domain of quantum mechanics and infinite potentiality.

The Absolute is what prevails beyond all limitations as the very context and totality of Reality itself. It is infinite because it is all there is, because nothing is outside of itself, and that it is immeasurable, timeless and invincible.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

My main point is, reality (maybe your "absolute reality"?) is not infinite, but by human comprehension infinity is a describable word for what appears to be infinity.

Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rather, I think it is more of a reason to say it is existence itself - that which cannot be proven, and even the "proving" itself denotes a linear construct and a misunderstanding of paradigm.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You and I can find common ground philosophically, but an awful lot of God-worshipers are big on exclusivity. Isn't the character God in their stories a little difficult to reconcile with your Divine Reality?

The difficulty would be different for everyone. But yes, I see your point. Really, what should I do? Should I not point out that this is all equivalent to God anyway?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Doesn't the God concept, the personification of the eternal, obstruct the Grand Unity at least as often as it points the way?

Yes, but that is just because it is a concept. All concepts I see as a limitation. This one however, like most other spiritual philosophy helps weaken other concepts, and those that otherwise would have been misleading.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Note the "Since there was a beginning, existence has not always been", thus my usage of the word.

As Taosaur said, eternity is not the potential infinity of time but merely the context of time. It is a misconception to say that eternity will never be known if it is not endured, yet eternity is not endurable because it is outside of time. What is timeless has no beginning or end.

Who marked the beginning of existence? Beginnings and endings are arbitrary, along with the entire timeline itself. There is nothing but Reality, and so there is no starting or stopping it. If there is only existence, there always has been and forever shall be. Who would be there to mark the beginning, and how would it arise out of non-existence? The simplicity of it all is shrouded in a forest of concepts.

See my former post about the word "eternity".

Timelessness is ONE of the ways to use the word, only one.

But that is not important, eternity is equally as invalid as infinity, I am talking about real systems.

Beginning is required or one will end up in stupid illogical circles.

I direct you and Taosaur to this chapter in the book trilogy "My Big TOE".

Page 123: http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

See also page 279 about infinity and how it relates to reality. Though some concepts/terms are unknown to you when the book is not read in order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

Happy reading, you won't regret it!

If you find the reading slightly interesting I advise you strongly to read the trilogy for free or buy the books.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

See my former post about the word "eternity".

Timelessness is ONE of the ways to use the word, only one.

Well, that is what it means in this discussion. That which is eternal is outside of time and therefore it is timeless. There's no need to ignore that, and the context in which we're speaking grants its validity. However many definitions there are is irrelevant when there is one already defined and suited for this discussion. I'm sure many would already agree.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

But that is not important, eternity is equally as invalid as infinity, I am talking about real systems.

Beginning is required or one will end up in stupid illogical circles.

Why is a beginning required - is it just for the sake of the intellect?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

I direct you and Taosaur to this chapter in the book trilogy "My Big TOE".

Page 123: http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

See also page 279 about infinity and how it relates to reality. Though some concepts/terms are unknown to you when the book is not read in order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

Happy reading, you won't regret it!

If you find the reading slightly interesting I advise you strongly to read the trilogy for free or buy the books.

It's interesting but from what I've read of it, it doesn't really resolve anything. Why does Thomas identify that a causal system is limited, yet that there still must be a beginning? The only things that can begin are those in a causal system - but even that has no actual existence. An "event" is also arbitrary. Reality is not an event because it is timeless, causeless and all-encompassing (See OP). What is nondual and Absolute has nothing outside of itself and so there is no way for it to magically "begin", but rather, it is the context in which all beginnings and endings can even be perceived at all.

As for the "infinity" argument, I'm still not convinced. You're never going to be able to "prove" or "demonstrate" infinity with finite, logical or linear terms. Infinity is what is beyond these, and beyond the comprehension thereof.

When someone speaks of the infinite Reality, they're talking about something that is far beyond all limitation, comprehension and dualistic conceptualization. It is still known and understood, but not by the mind. The mind asks that it must be evident, but it already is.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

See my former post about the word "eternity".

Timelessness is ONE of the ways to use the word, only one.

But that is not important, eternity is equally as invalid as infinity, I am talking about real systems.

Beginning is required or one will end up in stupid illogical circles.

I direct you and Taosaur to this chapter in the book trilogy "My Big TOE".

Page 123: http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

See also page 279 about infinity and how it relates to reality. Though some concepts/terms are unknown to you when the book is not read in order.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYH...age&q=&f=false

Happy reading, you won't regret it!

If you find the reading slightly interesting I advise you strongly to read the trilogy for free or buy the books.

Your "real systems" are confined to finite, particular phenomena, all of which arise interdependently and in concert from the ground of being, which is truly infinite and truly eternal. While one can trace patterns as far through existence as one can contrive to see, those causal networks only have actual existence in the present: Now is the only place that anything has existence because Now is all that exists, with nothing outside of it. There is ultimately no beginning to the interdependent co-arising because it is constant. This eternity is what we're discussing here.

Here's my summary of a relevant Buddhist teaching, the Four Dharma Worlds, derived mostly from Alan Watts' Religion of No Religion:

Spoiler for 4 dharma worlds:

1. ji--the world of particulars, the material, the practical

Close observation of this world reveals the relationships among particulars and the insubstantiality of the material, yielding:

2. ri--the world of unity, the universal, the spiritual, the eternal, the 'secret meaning' behind the material.

This view gives rise to the question, "What good is it?" How to reconcile it with ji? Hence:

3. ri ji muge--Between the spiritual and the material, no obstruction. You have access to both and can see particulars through the unity and vice versa.

This view has great 'special effects' and unlike straight ri, you can function in the world of particulars, but there is a more subtle and complete view:

4. ji ji muge--Between particular and particular, no obstruction. The "spiritual" as something distinct from the material is absent entirely. The interpenetration of all things is seen in every instance.