What is God?
June 22, 2017 at 4:51 pm #3284
Intro: My understanding of the god concept.
What is God? God is the creator.
What is the Creator? The force by which everything evolves.
What is evolution? A mistake that must be corrected.
What is the mistake? Falling from pure Peace.
What is pure Peace? Nothingness.
If we want to exist, nothingness cannot. The fact that nothingness cannot exist means we must constantly correct for the original mistake of something.
There is no end to the over and under correction in the system which is desperately trying to be perfect, but cannot because perfection is between the mistake and the correction and is impossible to find because everything must become fully peaceful to find peace.
Nothingness is Peace.
Heaven is Peace, thus Heaven is the nothingness of death.
Just my take. I am not afraid of any question or challenge as I want to know as many true things and as few false things as possible.June 23, 2017 at 12:53 am #3286
If God is creator, is God also “first cause”?June 23, 2017 at 1:07 am #3288
I don’t have any problem with your definition of God, principally because there’s no right or wrong definition. The force by which everything evolves…. yes I can still go with this, because everything does evolve – some people call this force Nature, others God, others a mystery.
Now you do some quantum jumping that is a completely illogical set of non-sequiturs.
“Evolution is a mistake that must be corrected” What? Why? Who determined this? Without evolution, you or I would not be here participating in a debate. If God is the author of evolution, how is it a mistake? Does God make mistakes? Primal forces don’t make mistakes, they just bowl on through without any hesitation.
“What is the mistake? Falling from Peace.” Again, a complete non-sequitur What does falling have to do with peace anyway? What do you mean by the term ‘falling from peace’?.
“What is pure peace? Nothingness.” Again, where do you get this answer from – why is pure peace ‘nothingness’ to you? Have you ever tried meditation, Andrew? Some of the more esoteric practitioners attain all sorts of mental states.
It’s just a completely illogical set of non-sequiturs, Andrew. It’s like you got as far as God being the primal force, and struggled to make it much further.
If at the end, your definition of the afterlife is simply that there isn’t one, I’m good with that too. Primal force, no meta-life. All good.
June 23, 2017 at 9:19 pm #3302
- This reply was modified 10 months ago by Strega.
Pope, from what I have gleamed from LHC results; If space, then energy then change. Though, it could easily have been; If energy, then space then change.
From what I have learned about the stages of our cosmos; X is in State A then changes to State B then and on and on.
This definition of God is the force by which change occurs because everything changes in a natural/organic fashion.June 23, 2017 at 9:35 pm #3303
Strega, I can see how you would call that a non-sequitur. I always fear defining every single term makes a post unreadable while skipping it makes it incomprehensible.
Evolution is how a system changes from current state to next state. You may have learned from procrastination that things only happen when the pressure or force is high enough. The “mistake” is that pressure. The “correction” is finally performing the task. There is a “correction” to attempt to reach the “peace” point, but alas peace cannot exist because the correction is always too little or too much. The perfect level is impossible because there is always “something” pushing or pulling. Peace existed when absolutely Nothing pushed or pulled on anything else. The fact that something exists means the struggle to find perfection will persist. The waveform will not settle at zero, at peace; it can only cross over the peaceful point of zero and be positive or negative.
I meditate everyday. I understand a great deal about life through dualism and seeking unity or “one.”
Just last week, my friend complained to me how difficult it is to talk about these ideas unless we sit down and agree to define the terms then the concepts to which they refer.June 23, 2017 at 10:59 pm #3307
Andrew, thanks for that. If the description is simply a personal model, then have at it. For me, I can’t get from ‘evolution’ to ‘mistake’.
Where you’re talking about the pressure point that converts inaction into action, you state that there is a ‘mistake’ there that needs correcting, vis-a-vis the push pull consequences. You’re then stating that you see this as a mistake as the correct state to be in, is a null one, where there is no action or reaction, no push pull, only stasis. Why do you call stasis ‘peace’? Why is stasis desirable?
I’d call stasis ‘stagnation’ except you’d need the evolutionary biodegradation to make it so!June 26, 2017 at 4:23 pm #3374
Strega, I choose my words carefully. The “mistake” term is part of evolution. When the DNA replicates incorrectly, a mistake has occurred, which is also the process by which genes mutate.
It is a beautiful mistake which creates infinite diversity.
On the peace idea: Have you ever entered a sensory deprivation chamber? Many consider this near perfect meditation as it blocks all outside stimulus besides the dreams inside your brain (visions from the 3rd eye).
Existence demands survival which in turn demands conflict. I cannot survive without consuming and destroying the living beings around me thus my existence forces conflict with the environment. I am unable to be completely peaceful simply because I exist. So, death is the only peace we can hope to have.
I hope that explanation makes some sense.
I agree “stasis” is unsustainable thanks to entropy. Stasis is not desirable as I do not wish to sleep through the brief waking life I lead.
I had a brief conversation about death over the weekend.
For every sleep cycle we either wake up or not. I have awoken from my slumber every single time; I have 100% success rate :).
I do not accept an assertion of a “life after death”, but since I do not know the experience of not waking, I cannot claim we will or will not wake again.
I will continue to live as long as possible and I must accept the conflict inherent in existing.June 26, 2017 at 8:42 pm #3377
That’s great, Andrew. Thanks for your clarifications, which now make more sense to me.June 27, 2017 at 4:57 pm #3382
OMG! Someone on the internet was able to understand me. I am fairly sure this is the first time.
I am being completely serious.June 27, 2017 at 9:08 pm #3388
Sounds like I should take the rest of the day off!June 27, 2017 at 10:10 pm #3389
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
Take Sunday off. The whole day. I insist.June 27, 2017 at 10:55 pm #3391
What, and miss Sunday School? Been out in the sun today, Reg?June 27, 2017 at 11:39 pm #3395
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
Yes, a bit too much sun today, praise be to Helios. Take the day off work so you CAN attend Sunday School, the only school where you get to set your own exams! I am considering dressed up as Darth Vader and standing in the Church car park with big sign that reads “Can you feel the power” for a laugh. Must have sunstroke!!June 29, 2017 at 1:58 am #3414
@What is God
God is the answer to what happens to where my lap goes when I stand up.
He is a mistake made by primates to help explain what they could not understand.
We are the force that created gods, a mistake. Correction of that mistake eventually lead to understanding evolution, relativity, and the math involved in bill calculations at bistros.
Entropy involves falling from chaos.
Pure entropy does not exist.
Pure chaos does not exist.
Heaven is not entropy or chaos, as much as it is non-existent.
When your premises include what god, and/or heaven are, the argument is flawed.
Claiming givens is not the same as establishing facts.
Achieving the success of communicating a flawed concept, accurately, is not the same as being correct.
I like where you were trying to go, I do, but, it is still a string of non-sequitur, albeit non-sequiturs of known derivation.
😀June 30, 2017 at 7:31 pm #3418
TJ, I mostly agree. This is in the Theist section and I recently completed a 6 week Church group series (my step father invited me so I indulged him) called, “Who Needs God?” by Northpoint Ministries (http://northpoint.org/whoneedsgod).
Interesting series going through Atheism, different God concepts, Jesus’ ideas on God, then ultimately accepting God. I had some problems with the assertions, but I was so happy to have a face to face conversation with well educated (a few engineers and scientists) Christians.
This post is how I define God while speaking with believers mostly due to their immediate dismissal of a world without God. I found myself ending conversations before they got anywhere interesting by not being capable to saying, “Some sort of God could exist.” The above God definition is almost identical to defining “nature” or the “how of nature.”
See any definition of God which you could say, “That is possible”?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.