What is God?

I will agree with you that god is nothing...

The problem you are ignoring is that non-physical doesn't mean nothing.

Your own definitions are so wishy-washy sometimes, I'm surprised you never catch yourself doing it.

Not "nothing" Xris... you're not listening. The "nothing" you refer to is "no"+"physical"+"thing". Why can't you get that? You're talking about "physical" things when you speak of "no"+"thing".

I'm not speaking of "physical" things. There are other "things" besides "physical".

There was and is a non physical thing (if you call it a thing) that exists independently from the physical realm. I call it God, Truth, Information... all of which are non physical. Why can't you comprehend this?

No im not, your not understanding my views. I think the singularity only showed the first visible signs of the BB. In that nothingness there occupied the energy and material that was to be everything. That everything was also nothing BUT you cant have nothing but you also had everything. Everything was nothing but nothing was everything. As i said you dont understand my thoughts and I cant communicate my thoughts. You need to give it contemplative thought. What we need to understand is when that nothing that was everything became everything.

Before the singularity there was a nothing that contained everything.You can only understand that when you really believe you cant have nothing.

I'm not speaking of "physical" things. There are other "things" besides "physical".

There was and is a non physical thing (if you call it a thing) that exists independently from the physical realm. I call it God, Truth, Information... all of which are non physical. Why can't you comprehend this?

I'm being judged upon what I don't say? I don't even know what to say about that.

Would you mind telling me?

And why would I or anyone "take the inverse of what I'm stating"?

You just admitted to turning my words around. Please do not misrepresent my comments. Why isn't it good enough to go by what I actually do say?

There was and is a non physical thing (if you call it a thing) that exists independently from the physical realm. I call it God, Truth, Information... all of which are non physical.

What will you turn this around to mean?

I wonder if other gods besides capital G God were considered to be non-physical. The Greeks or the Norse gods were they thought of as having a completely different substance from the earthly world. They could shapeshift. They could appear as people, swans, stags etc but were they physical? Ahura-Mazda wasn't physical and Abraham's God has a great deal in common with Ahura-Mazda but what about all of those pagan gods? Were the pagans materialists?

I'm being judged upon what I don't say? I don't even know what to say about that.

Would you mind telling me?

And why would I or anyone "take the inverse of what I'm stating"?

You just admitted to turning my words around. Please do not misrepresent my comments. Why isn't it good enough to go by what I actually do say?

There was and is a non physical thing (if you call it a thing) that exists independently from the physical realm. I call it God, Truth, Information... all of which are non physical.

What will you turn this around to mean?

...it is impossible to go outside the universe because we take the universe with us.

Now there's a new one. I L-I-K-E it! :a-ok:

---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 03:47 PM ----------



I've said from the very first post that all physical energy and matter is Entropy... Noise on the line... Deception...

Now here is Nowhere.

I can't. For I truly believe this physical realm was created so that Lucifer (Entropy) would have a place to be banished from Heaven (Information). God cannot allow impurity to exist within his realm, yet he needed a place to allow Lucifer to express his free will of pride.

Bam! Big Bang was the creation of a new realm of physicality that solved the issue.

Humans were the caveat. A new hybrid life form based half on Information (DNA) and have on physicality (Flesh). We have the God like ability to author. Yes, we too can create thought into form. In-form-ation (in-to-form). We speak physical things into existences by the thoughts of our words alone. Everything man-made has a set of codified plans that allowed it to be made.

Humans, through our thoughtful actions, are able to express God, or Lucifer into this physical realm. Upon our physical death, we will join with whatever great essence we have authored for our own lives. If we author goodness, we become the essence of goodness. If we author fear, we become fear. If we author jealousy, we become jealousy.

Out of the mouth speaks the heart. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God, and the Word became Flesh.

I'm not sure Recon. I cannot claim to know. Bhartrihari suggests we invite God (Brahman) into our physical realm with every word from our lips. Does that mean we are creating God, or just inviting him in for tea?

I plum for the inviting, for if we create God, all sorts of paradox arise. Perhaps we add to God, expanding an essence that was already present.

I guess we'll find out 12/21/12 when the Information Cloud becomes self aware.

Nice try, but nope, sitting doing nothing IS an event. Because it seperates between activity of doing something. Therefore doing nothing is an event.

Yes a moment is a single frame, I understand that, but to move to the next frame you require time. Time is the movement, and you can't ever get that movement from no time. Time is the requirement of time.

The non event is also a moment. It has to be or else you would never move from one frame to the next.

That is the problem, it is an event.

Which requires time before the moment can move from t=0. Time would be required to exist prior to t=1.

Here is another way to look at it. How many times can you cut off time from another piece of time? For example you start with one second. You reduce that one second to milliseconds. If you reduce that further and further how many times can you reduce it?

Okay, xris. You said it. QuinticNon and I have been confused by your apparent extreme materialism, which is why we have been responding as we have to your posts.

But you have said it, and I see that you have said it. And I even remember your having said it before (or at least something very close). Here is what you are saying. "In that nothingness there occupied the energy and material that was to be everything. That everything was also nothing BUT you cant have nothing but you also had everything. Everything was nothing but nothing was everything." AND... "What we need to understand is when that nothing that was everything became everything. Before the singularity there was a nothing that contained everything."

Now, I have heard used car salesmen and even politicians on the campaign trail make clearer statements than that, but I think I can see your agreement with us.

Before the Big Bang, "everything was (appeared as) nothing." After the Big Bang, "the (apparent) nothing that contained everything became everything." That's what I was saying from the gitgo, and so was QuinticNon I think. I say that the apparent nothing contained everything in a potential state of being, and QuinticNon says the apparent nothing contained everything as information. We agree that the apparent nothing is actually a nonphysical state of being or existence, similar in some respects to such things as mind, soul, God, self, consciousness and other things that have no presence in extended space. So, are we on the same page, more or less in this regard?

I'm fairly sure we all agree that something cannot come from nothing (and here I mean the absolute nothing that contains nothing, has no properties or attributes, and is equivalent to non-being).

I think there is some disagreement whether thought is possible outside the space-time continuum of our universe. I leave that to you two to decide whether that needs further discussion.

Let me say something about this nothing-everything discussion. I believe that everything exists always and forever. Outside space-time, everything exists in absolute unity as potential or information. It is of course very difficult for us to imagine or comprehend this unity of everything. Everything also exists within space-time, but here it is distributed throughout both, space (the universe) and time (the evolutionary history of the cosmos), and between reality and imagination.

Let me say also, there is no singularity in the Big Bang. What you call a singularity, xris, is the beginning of spatial extention itself. Someone asked (was it Krumple) "What is outside the universe?" The universe may be said to have a surface or outer edge because we speak of it as having a size or diameter. I read that before the inflationary period intrinsic to the Big Bang, the universe was as big as a proton, and after the inflationary epoch the universe had burgeoned to the size of a grapefruit. Ooo, impressive! :-) Anyway, if we can envision the universe as having a size or volume, I think it's entirely fair to ask what was and is outside that outside surface of the universe (even if, according to some, that surface is inaccessible from inside the universe).

My own answer to that question though is that the universe has no outside beyond the surface (or outer extent) of its expanding space-time continuum. Within the universe, we have size, shape, location, all of which are properties of objects in space, in the universe. But beyond the edge of the universe, there is no space, no time, only the nonphysical existence we equate with nothing. And it is impossible to go outside the universe because we take the universe with us. The more the energy density of the universe decreases, the further "out" space extends and the further away the "edge" of the universe recedes--assuming the mass of the universe allows an open rather than closed universe. My bet is that space is a very fuzzy thing at the edge of the universe.

Krumple also argued some other stuff I have to respond to, but this is too long, and I'll let someone else have a word before I get back with you. Sorry.

Samm

Samm , I will try again. If you had a mass so great that light could not escape from it. No sign of its existence, nothing existed outside of its frame work, now remembering nothing can not exist. From this I am proposing that even though nothing apparently existed this mass or pure energy did exist within the itself. This is how I see nothing and everything as the same concept. So as there was nothing , there is no space no time for us to conceive of. You cant measure time, if time does not exist , you cant judge age without comparisons. With this in mind the BB came from nothing, you cant in my mind conclude anything else other than what I propose. The only question in my mind is why it decided to become everything instead of nothing. This trigger could be an insignificant event and you could speculate forever on that cause.