God; puzzle solved.

Logically, if a thing cannot exist totally independent from it's environment, that thing's existence as 'one thing' is an illusion. If we follow this trail of thought we arrive at the conclusion that there is only one thing that exists totally on it's own, and that is the entire world as a singularity. All the rest is illusion.

What you say about the moon is true. It cannot hold it's own against the sun. But both are equally vital for our continued existence.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Logically, if a thing cannot exist totally independent from it's environment, that thing's existence as 'one thing' is an illusion. If we follow this trail of thought we arrive at the conclusion that there is only one thing that exists totally on it's own, and that is the entire world as a singularity. All the rest is illusion.

What you say about the moon is true. It cannot hold it's own against the sun. But both are equally vital for our continued existence.

Something can be outside the singularity and within if it is a different substance than what comprises of all perceivable matter.

This substance is both here and not here.

It is also between here and wherever there is.

It is a limitless syntax that surrounds all created things.

The singularity is enveloped in pure invisible creation.

0 Replies

No. Nothing can be outside the singularity. If there is something outside it we are not talking about the same singularity.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

No. Nothing can be outside the singularity. If there is something outside it we are not talking about the same singularity.

Einstein once thought gravity could not exist outside of the physical model but it does.

The singularity does not have to represent the smallest parts of matter.

The singularity is still made of even smaller particles that are the fabric of creation itself.

The singularity is a creation of creation itself.

Thus the singularity bears a resemblance to the artist that created it, but the singularity is merely an image of the creator. The singularity is not "the creator".

Because the singularity is physical and visible and the creator is spiritual and invisible.

When we attempt look at physical light it disappears into the realm of spirituality.

Spirituality is how God connects to our physical world.

0 Replies

We are definetly not talking about the same singularity. Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

We are definetly not talking about the same singularity.

If you are talking about the big bang then we are talking about the same thing.

Your theory creates an unintelligent force behind creation.

We finally get science to recognize some sort of creation and they DUMB IT DOWN as usual.

God is all knowing, all powerful and everywhere present,

Anything less is not God but a creation of God.

0 Replies

Rex

My theory 'creates' a force behind creation. It doesn't yet consider the aspect of intelligence. My concept of the Living Everything is very similar to JLNobody's concept of Brahma.

If my brain was the only arena in the whole world in which thoughts could surface, I could be said to be omniscient, since within me would be the only place where knowledge could occur. That isn't to say that I know everything.

0 Replies

Re: God; puzzle solved.

Cyracuz wrote:

The issue of God is not a question of faith. It is a question of logic.

What makes you think that?

Cyracuz wrote:

For the sake of the experiment I ask that you forget all you know and all you think you know about God.

For the sake of the experiment, ok.

Cyracuz wrote:

Then we can state that logically it makes sense to think of the entire world as a sigularity. I am not talking about consciousness, just an abstract idea of 'everything as one'.

I expect what you mean here is that we can make this sort of assertion for the sake of argument. There is nothing "logical" that would lead us to this conclusion, which is what you imply you mean when you state we can make this statement "logically". However, I will assume this is a starting assumption you want to make.

Cyracuz wrote:

Further, we can logically state that this 'everything' is alive. The basis of this argument is that I am alive, and my existence is dependent on all the forces of the universe. Gravity, sunlight and so on. So life cannot be considered an attribute soley of the living entity, since it's surroundings are neccesary for it's continued survival.

Now it seems like you are trying to do more than simply lay out some starting assumption, as you state "the basis of this argument is ...". Unfortunately, it does not follow that simply because *you* are alive and your existence is dependent upon "all the forces of the universe" that everything is alive. If a doctor uses forceps to deliver a child, that doesn't mean the forceps themselves are alive. So no, it is not a logical conclusion that everything is alive simply because your existence is dependent upon "all the forces of the universe".

Cyracuz wrote:

Now we have a logical definition of the term God that does not defy science, and that does not contradict anything that's said about God in the bible. So God can be clarified as 'the living everything'.

But the Bible does not present God as "the living everything", meaning your definition *does* contradict what is said about God in the Bible.

Cyracuz wrote:

Then it is true that God is omnicent and omnipotent, because within God all things can be known and done, and nothing can be so outside it.

Even if your definition above of God were true, this would not make God omniscient. Omniscience is not defined as being able to know all things; it is defined as knowing all things.

Cyracuz wrote:

It is also true that God is everywhere. True by definition.

Your definition would only require God to exist everywhere in the universe. It doesn't entail God exits outside of the universe.

Cyracuz wrote:

It is definitly true that God works in mysterious ways.

I guess I'll have to give you this one Smile

Cyracuz wrote:

It is true that man was created in it's image, because we are the result of the inner workings of this 'living everything', and the creature human is a direct result of all the components of this 'living everything' working on eachother.

If you happen to take "in his image" to mean "the result of the inner workings ..." then sure.

-- dilbert

0 Replies

Re: God; puzzle solved.

Cyracuz wrote:

Now we have a logical definition of the term God that does not defy science, and that does not contradict anything that's said about God in the bible. So God can be clarified as 'the living everything'.

It is definitly true that God works in mysterious ways.

It is true that man was created in it's image, because we are the result of the inner workings of this 'living everything', and the creature human is a direct result of all the components of this 'living everything' working on eachother.

Quote:

ok, so as per your logic, god = life, and life works in mysterious ways.
where you lose me, is the bit abt man being created in it's image? what image? god's image? god = life, so man is created in "life's" image? but man is NOT a product of ALL of life. man is a functional endpoint of his environment, as is the dung beetle. please clarify - i am curious, and find this line of thought interesting.

0 Replies

What is life; body or soul?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

What is life; body or soul?

"soul" is an emergent property of life. there is no soul without a body that is alive.

0 Replies

heartofthesun wrote:

xingu wrote:
What is life; body or soul?

"soul" is an emergent property of life. there is no soul without a body that is alive.

Well I believe that the soul is life. The body is a vessel that allows the soul to to be present here on earth. When we die, that is when the body dies, do you think the soul dies as well?

0 Replies

Soul is life. Body is the thing life happens to. But the complexity of body is a result of long term molding by soul, and thus, creatures that have evolved for longer are more complex in body.

I believe that the thing that separates human from flower is body. The soul of each creature is the same, only at different stages, so to speak.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Soul is life. Body is the thing life happens to. But the complexity of body is a result of long term molding by soul, and thus, creatures that have evolved for longer are more complex in body.

I believe that the thing that separates human from flower is body. The soul of each creature is the same, only at different stages, so to speak.

I wouldn't say those that evolved longer got a more complex body. All creatures evolve a body that will allow them to survive in a given environment. All bodies are complex in their own way so they can deal with the conditions they live under.

0 Replies

I agree, xingu.

When I say evolved longer I mean that the organism has 'travelled farther'. The amoeba through constant trial became an organism that crawled to land. Countless generations of altering to adapt better led to this, as it led to opposing thumbs and the ability to discover fire.

Soul is the fire that makes this happen. The whole mechanics of eating is the living entity's process of burning through matter. In a cycle of seven years every single cell in the human body is replaced.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

heartofthesun wrote:
xingu wrote:
What is life; body or soul?

"soul" is an emergent property of life. there is no soul without a body that is alive.

Well I believe that the soul is life. The body is a vessel that allows the soul to to be present here on earth. When we die, that is when the body dies, do you think the soul dies as well?

Yep.

Or rather, that no soul really exists to start with. What is this supposed soul anyway? It's only apparent purpose seems to be to exist outside the body. Everything else can be attributed to mind or body.

0 Replies

Eorl

Isn't the term 'mind' just as fleeting and ill defined as the term 'soul'?

0 Replies

Cyracuz, no I don't think so. One could use the words to mean the same thing, but we can prove a mind exists. The concept of a soul seems to have the purpose of supplying all those attributes that you wish not to be part of mind.

Soul is supposed to be somehow seperate from the body. One may take mind altering drugs and measure the effect. One sells one's soul to the devil...the souls is an entirely fictional construct as far as I can see.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

What is life; body or soul?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

When I say evolved longer I mean that the organism has 'travelled farther'. The amoeba through constant trial became an organism that crawled to land. Countless generations of altering to adapt better led to this, as it led to opposing thumbs and the ability to discover fire.

Soul is the fire that makes this happen. The whole mechanics of eating is the living entity's process of burning through matter. In a cycle of seven years every single cell in the human body is replaced.

Physics and chemistry make it happen. "Souls" are as mythical as deities.

It is not true that all cells in the body are replaced every 7 years. This is one of those oft-repeated myths that too many people believe without question. Neurons aren't ever replaced, which is why we can retain memories from childhood. Stomach lining and the outer layer of skin cells are replaced frequently. If they were all replaced, tattoos and scars would disappear in 7 years.

0 Replies

God; puzzle solved.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know