Thread: God - Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

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.

Interesting...

Taosaur, what do you think of my answers (to your questions)? Do you see what I'm saying and do you think there's better a way around this obstacle you pointed out? I thought I'd have to mention God to re-contextualize old beliefs, but I guess I could have listed many names from many different cultures also. E.g. The Supreme Reality, Mind, etc.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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.

First this nut needs to be cracked.

There are real systems and there are not-real systems.

Real systems are finite, infinite and eternal systems are thus not real.

Simply, AUM does not need to be infinite, the concept of infinity itself brings so many logical inconsistencies which includes infinite processes that requires infinite time and energy.

AUM or reality is relatively and apparently infinite , that is sufficient. Infinity in this view is a metaphor and not a mathematical abstraction.



Read "Infinity Gets Too Big for Real Britches", but I understand that if you want a more clear perception of the words one needs to read from the beginning of the trilogy.

I quote from "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism"

"The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong."

The scientific model is very comprehensive, it has to be, and without the whole picture any text read separately will contain some missing holes, that is why I strongly urge to the read the whole, and get a bigger picture. It will make sense as it is written to a westerners logical and rational mind.

Originally Posted by Quoted by Specialis Sapientia

"The logic of causality only requires that a given system's beginning appears to be mystical from a point of view that lies within the system. The logic of causality can say nothing about the beginnings of its own system because those beginnings lie outside that system - Beyond the reach of its own causal logic. Beginnings belong to the higher level of causality and are beyond the purview or scope of a subsystem's own causal logic. Imagine a hierarchy of causal systems, each being a subset of the next. Thus mysticism may be removed if we can obtain the perspective of the superset to which we belong."

It seems that this supports the view that Taosaur is advocating. If we postulate the existence of some causal system external to our own from which the 'illusion' of the mystical is evaporated, then how is the beginning of that causal system explained? Surely it too is mystical until one creates a yet larger causal network that itself is either infinite (hence mystical by the authors definition) or itself has the same mystical beginning. Does the author address this somewhere?

My opinion is that postulating the existence of a larger causual network as the author that you are linking to seems to be postulating is every bit as mystical as any of the other options.

Please understand that I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool reductionist but it seems that any way that we try to deny the existence of the mystical leads to contradiction. That is something of a problem for the programme of complete scientific understanding as advertised, is it not?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It seems that this supports the view that Taosaur is advocating. If we postulate the existence of some causal system external to our own from which the 'illusion' of the mystical is evaporated, then how is the beginning of that causal system explained? Surely it too is mystical until one creates a yet larger causal network that itself is either infinite (hence mystical by the authors definition) or itself has the same mystical beginning. Does the author address this somewhere?

My opinion is that postulating the existence of a larger causual network as the author that you are linking to seems to be postulating is every bit as mystical as any of the other options.

Please understand that I'm pretty much a dyed in the wool reductionist but it seems that any way that we try to deny the existence of the mystical leads to contradiction. That is something of a problem for the programme of complete scientific understanding as advertised, is it not?

It is to an extent explained in the chapter "In the Beginning... Causality and Mysticism", read it, it is only 3 pages.

The rest is explained throughout the trilogy, but I think your question is explained adequately in the link.