The properties of God.

[Detales]

1holycatholic~~“God is necessarily uncreated and atemporal. The universe is created and exists atemporally. In fact the existence of the universe is radically contingent.”

My God, mark it down! We actually agree on something!

 

[greylorn]

~~Wassup"Would it not be an odd God who did not have the property of connectedness with His Creation?"

I agree. I never bought the God and his Train Set theory of Creation. After I had several mystical experiences for which the Catholic Church had, despite due diligence on my part, no reasonable, cogent, or practical answer, I started looking elsewhere. I discovered a philosophy that explained everything not only to my sensibilities but to my intellect as well. Fundamentally, I could state it very baldly as God and the Universe are One. Jesus’ realization of this Fact was stated personally as “I and the Father are One,” as the component of experience we call “I” (not the personal “me”) is the Soul factor, or link to Divinity. This link can be experienced and magnified.

I too had an experience which neither the Church, nor to my greater surprise, science could explain. Practitioners of both faiths denied the reality of my experience. Years later I found that all serious football players are aware of this experience, know how to deal with it, and even have a name for it. Since then my search for understanding has been grounded in the real world.

You will eventually learn a more interesting level of understanding (Mark 4:33-34) but must first acknowledge that your current new age slogan is just that, and fails to provide a useful foundation for the practical application of the slogan to life and the “physical reality” experience. If you continue to pursue knowledge, you will find some into which your belief that God and the universe are one does not fit. I invite you to begin by studying Newton’s 2nd law and the First Law of Thermodynamics. After you’ve studied them to the point at which you understand them, talk to me. Your quiz will be, “What are the implications of each law separately, and of the pair combined, to your beliefs?”

For the time being, you’ve followed a path similar to my own, moving from a belief system which answers few questions to a belief system which answers a few more. Until we learn to leap tall buildings with a single bound, one step at a time works---- so long as one keeps stepping.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God is necessarily uncreated and atemporal. The universe is created and exists atemporally. In fact the existence of the universe is radically contingent.

yup, the idea that the universe and G-d are one is simply calling the universe the necessary being, as the universe has no reality seperate from its contingent parts, all of which might not have been and then require a cause, leading always to a necessary being.

 

[greylorn]

1holycatholic~~“God is necessarily uncreated and atemporal. The universe is created and exists atemporally. In fact the existence of the universe is radically contingent.”

My God, mark it down! We actually agree on something!

I propose that you have agreed upon mixed absurdities. It makes far more sense to propose that the Creator of the universe came into existence, and to not confuse this statement with the idea that another entity created Him.

“Atemporal” seems to be 1HC’s word of the day. I had to look it up to determine that it only applies to arguments in which the notion of time is well understood. Neither of you schmoozers have established a definition of time that would support 1HC’s statement.

D: your “radically contingent” statement is meaningless. Please attach some meaning to it, or admit that you took too many “use obfuscating phrases” pills today.

 

[wussup]

Gosh, there are some reallly condescending folks on this line. I think I will fit right in.

When dealing with ‘philosophy’ one necessarily deals with the transcendent qualities of existence. (Transcendent being defined roughly as “being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge”, thank you Professor Kant). It is our attempt to understand a very esoteric concept, Properties of God, a concept wholly in the realm of speculation and, dare I say it, transcendence.

Warpspeedpetey, regarding your comments “the universe the necessary being, as the universe has no reality seperate from its contingent parts, all of which might not have been and then require a cause, leading always to a necessary being.” How familiar are you with Spinoza’s Ethics?

 

[Detales]

Hmmm…Greylorn. Fascinating. Yes, and it is not only football players. It is anyone who does something so intensely that they are simply present as awareness, in a sort of witness like state. In that state what is happening at “the moment” (it seems in a way bereft of time, though it moves) already foretells the the forthcoming by feel and by knowledge.

Having experienced that, I can only add that there is more, as what you speak of yet has an object of awareness, however more refined it may be from the ordinary “sleep” state of every day hum-drum.

As to my “slogan,” such statements are often distillations of far broader insights and are meant more to get attention than to provide a complete map. So don’t dismiss it just yet, but no matter. I know what it means to me and some like me.

I am amused and encouraged by your accurate phrase “Practitioners of both faiths denied the reality of my experience.” Delightful and true. You might enjoy a dose of Ken Wilbur or two.

Offhand, as a gambit, I would say that the First Law implies that Energy IS and can appear formed according to identification with a perspective. Energy and matter are the identical Substance, form being, for the lack of a better analogy, holographically “real” as complexities of wave patterns (Word) in the primal Substance.

The Second Law implies, I would say, that over time the potential of energy to transmute in the appearance of forms diminishes, though the energy still IS This can foster a speculation about the nature of experience at the point of final quiescence.

Poor analogy, but: brass bowl struck by attention = sound, manifestation. No attention = no sound, potential, where sound = experience. In either case, the bowl “is.” The “striking” may be similar to your won waking up from a deep sleep. “You” weren’t, but awakened, saw yourself awaken, actually, and then, awake you “are.” Potential and Kinetic.

The God is the Infinite and Always IS moment of Potential.

That could be a start.

 

[Detales]

Wussup~~“Gosh, there are some reallly condescending folks on this line. I think I will fit right in.”

That’s pretty high on my scale. Kudos. And welcome, agreee or not, lol!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Gosh, there are some reallly condescending folks on this line. I think I will fit right in.

When dealing with ‘philosophy’ one necessarily deals with the transcendent qualities of existence. (Transcendent being defined roughly as “being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge”, thank you Professor Kant). It is our attempt to understand a very esoteric concept, Properties of God, a concept wholly in the realm of speculation and, dare I say it, transcendence.

Warpspeedpetey, regarding your comments “the universe the necessary being, as the universe has no reality seperate from its contingent parts, all of which might not have been and then require a cause, leading always to a necessary being.” How familiar are you with Spinoza’s Ethics?

sure, are you refering to his ideas on substance? that nature and G-d are one and the same?

 

[greylorn]

Exactly!!! With all due respect (or none as the case may be), I hope the moderators don’t close the thread as 1HOLYCATHOLIC (odd name, even Jesus questioned the affirmation he was ‘good’, let alone ‘holy’). I have been long absent from the forum, but see that this question has some potential.

Would it not be an odd God who did not have the property of connectedness with His Creation?

Nice turn of phrase, and right on point. Thank you.

I’d not worry about the moderators. They are thoughtful people, not thread burners. The thread will persist while it stays on topic, and while its contributors contribute.

Commenting on 1HC’s personal choice to give himself a title rather than a name is the kind of thing moderators frown upon because it is personal. As a matter of fact, I’ll not be surprised to receive yet another reprimand for this minor usurpation of a moderator’s job. Hope not. I’d really like this thread to remain on topic and policed from within, so that it becomes a place for the exchange of interesting ideas and thoughtful comments. . .

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I propose that you have agreed upon mixed absurdities. It makes far more sense to propose that the Creator of the universe came into existence, and to not confuse this statement with the idea that another entity created Him.

how so?, at some point you come to a being who is the maximal state of existence. that then would be G-d.

“Atemporal” seems to be 1HC’s word of the day. I had to look it up to determine that it only applies to arguments in which the notion of time is well understood. Neither of you schmoozers have established a definition of time that would support 1HC’s statement.

atemporal as in the illusion of time is contingent on the necessary being, it only exists because he exists.

D: your “radically contingent” statement is meaningless. Please attach some meaning to it, or admit that you took too many “use obfuscating phrases” pills today.

radically contingent as in “might not have been” and as such requires a cause.

 

[Detales]

If by “D” you mean me, I believe that that phrase came from 1holey.

And if I took a pill this morning, it was red.

And whosever phrase that was, if you come to understand it you may have a wonderful key in your possession.

 

[greylorn]

Gosh, there are some reallly condescending folks on this line. I think I will fit right in.

When dealing with ‘philosophy’ one necessarily deals with the transcendent qualities of existence. (Transcendent being defined roughly as “being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge”, thank you Professor Kant). It is our attempt to understand a very esoteric concept, Properties of God, a concept wholly in the realm of speculation and, dare I say it, transcendence.

Warpspeedpetey, regarding your comments “the universe the necessary being, as the universe has no reality seperate from its contingent parts, all of which might not have been and then require a cause, leading always to a necessary being.” How familiar are you with Spinoza’s Ethics?

If you plan on fitting in by being condescending and quoting dead philosophers, perhaps you could find a different thread. Since this thread is designed to encourage thought, how would you feel about fitting in by contributing your own creative thoughts? This would contribute in a way that displaying the fact that you’ve read some unimaginative philosopher cannot.

On this thread, you can contribute by being yourself, sharing your own genuinely imaginative ideas. If you want to wear a Spinoza T-shirt and heckle from a sideline, great, and please do that elsewhere.

The quotes of big name philosophers is just a baby step away from the reiteration of dogma. There are plenty of other threads which will be happy to make a space for you in their massage circle.

 

[wussup]

sure, are you refering to his ideas on substance? that nature and G-d are one and the same?

In essence yes, but my understanding of Spinoza is his concept of God as being was more along the lines of a ‘presence of free will’ that willfully created existence. I suspect his concept of Boehms holographic universe is a concept Spinoza would have explored deeply.

Regarding Warpspeedpetey maximal state of existence, when my daughter was 4 I remember her mother going in to read her a bedside story. Half way through the story telling session her mother came storming out of her bedroom (because she was just a stormy kind of gal) angry at me (because she was always angry at me) because my daughter asked her 'if there is a Heavenly Father does that mean there is a Heavenly Mother, and if there are does that mean they have parents, and if they do, when does it stop?" Pretty deep question for a four year old, and no, I never had a conversation such as this with her.

And regarding time factor, if God is a being of light, as the Bible says, does that not mean that he exists in all time simultaneously?

 

[greylorn]

transcedence is an essential quality of the necessary being, upon which all contingent beings rely for their existence. it seems as thhough it is vey important for you to integrate scientific and metaphysical notions, how does G-d interact with the universe? who knows? why is it even important? out of curiosity is it in reference to the ICR or some other problem with the metaphysical explanations?

If you do not recognize the value of the questions, you are ill-equipped to deal with them. (NASA was smart enough not to hire astronauts or engineers who did not think that getting men into space was a good idea. They excluded those who did not believe it was possible to send men to the moon or to any other interesting place.)

I have no interest in changing your value system so as to adjust what is and what is not important to you. There are some interesting and complex ideas which are important to me. I’ve invited some of the few who are more interested in ideas than dogma to contribute to this thread.

Transcendence is an invented concept to deflect rational criticism from another invented concept. Discussions of a transcendent God belong in the many CAF threads devoted to kicking around faith-based explanations. Please go there and say whatever you want about the entity who you seem to believe must not be named. They will embrace your reiterations of dogma. Thank you.

 

[wussup]

If you plan on fitting in by being condescending and quoting dead philosophers, perhaps you could find a different thread. Since this thread is designed to encourage thought, how would you feel about fitting in by contributing your own creative thoughts? This would contribute in a way that displaying the fact that you’ve read some unimaginative philosopher cannot.

Hmmm, I think not. I have not been condescending, though I will quote dead philosophers (and even some live ones if I think them worthy). When I said I will fit right in I was highlighting absurdity by being absurd. Three points to consider why I discuss the way I do; first, very little is new under the sun. Truly new and novel subjects are called dissertations and are reserved for the appropriate audience, that not being forums. Second, many of these great thinkers have developed an entire argument that can cut a lot of time out of the discussion by communicating a whole lot (books worth) in a few sentences; finally, if I am going to go down a road paved by another, I will at least credit the original surveyor. Please bare in mind, I thought this was a ‘Philosphy’ (from a RC Forum pov), and referencing great thinkers is not a bad thing.

Considering the legalistic structure of the RC, I am surprised at your response. Most RC I have talked to want names, references, etc…

Finally, I am legitimately curious about the RC beliefs. I do not challenge RC doctrine per see, though I will ask questions to prompt a deeper response. I do not delve into the anti-Catholic literature to ask questions. I am respectful of the tremendous contribution to philosophic thought the RC have given mankind.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you plan on fitting in by being condescending and quoting dead philosophers, perhaps you could find a different thread. Since this thread is designed to encourage thought, how would you feel about fitting in by contributing your own creative thoughts? This would contribute in a way that displaying the fact that you’ve read some unimaginative philosopher cannot.

On this thread, you can contribute by being yourself, sharing your own genuinely imaginative ideas. If you want to wear a Spinoza T-shirt and heckle from a sideline, great, and please do that elsewhere.

The quotes of big name philosophers is just a baby step away from the reiteration of dogma. There are plenty of other threads which will be happy to make a space for you in their massage circle.

you kids keep off my lawn!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you do not recognize the value of the questions, you are ill-equipped to deal with them.

that wasnt an answer, how do i know they have value?

I have no interest in changing your value system so as to adjust what is and what is not important to you. There are some interesting and complex ideas which are important to me. I’ve invited some of the few who are more interested in ideas than dogma to contribute to this thread.

im asking why they should be important in the grand sceme of things? the ICR or what?

Transcendence is an invented concept to deflect rational criticism from another invented concept.

evidence for this assertion? and which othe invented concept are you talking about?

Discussions of a transcendent God belong in the many CAF threads devoted to kicking around faith-based explanations.

i dont need faith based explanations, i can do it on pure rationalism.

Please go there and say whatever you want about the entity who you seem to believe must not be named. They will embrace your reiterations of dogma. Thank you.

you know me, the more condescending the longer im willing to go, but you never make it past a few posts so dont play that game with me, just answer the questions. civility will be repaid in kind, just defend your statements.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Considering the legalistic structure of the RC, I am surprised at your response. Most RC I have talked to want names, references, etc…

heterodoxical theism and physics, not RC.

 

[greylorn]

In essence yes, but my understanding of Spinoza is his concept of God as being was more along the lines of a ‘presence of free will’ that willfully created existence. I suspect his concept of Boehms holographic universe is a concept Spinoza would have explored deeply.

Regarding Warpspeedpetey maximal state of existence, when my daughter was 4 I remember her mother going in to read her a bedside story. Half way through the story telling session her mother came storming out of her bedroom (because she was just a stormy kind of gal) angry at me (because she was always angry at me) because my daughter asked her 'if there is a Heavenly Father does that mean there is a Heavenly Mother, and if there are does that mean they have parents, and if they do, when does it stop?" Pretty deep question for a four year old, and no, I never had a conversation such as this with her.

And regarding time factor, if God is a being of light, as the Bible says, does that not mean that he exists in all time simultaneously?

If God is a being of light (I’ve yet to read a Bible that says that, but maybe some New Agers have infiltrated the Church since my readings), it only means that interactions between God and the physical universe are limited by the velocity of light. Light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation have several mysterious properties, but the ability of an EM wave to exist in all time simultaneously is not one of them. The velocity of light is a function of finite space and finite time.

You may stop the name-dropping or concept-dropping any time, thank you. Personally, I find statements such as, " I suspect his concept of Boehms holographic universe is a concept Spinoza would have explored deeply," as flatulently pretentious.

Please do not take that statement personally. In the course of a half century of discourse I’ve encountered a large number of people, mostly holding some sort of professorship, who cannot complete a sentence without dropping the name of some learned person, or some arcane idea which no one else has read anything about. This is so tiresome. But most importantly, it does not further this thread.

 

[wussup]

hmm…quite fascinating, to quote Professor Archimedes Q. Porter, “Pray allow yourself to be guided by a more mature and practical mind hereafter when in need of wise counsel” I suspect the transcendence of God creates an environment where the universality of being and structure of God lie beyond every character a person can possess. The being of God is the transcendence pure and simple. In fact it is the phenomenological disclosedness of Being that we strive for. In truth, transcendence is a unifier of both ontology and phenomenology of God. Detales, don’t you agree that in modern times the Christian interpretation of God gets interpreted ontologically using ancient ontology, and for that matter, our own existence. In fact, psychology, biology, and anthropology have all failed to help define the an unequivocal ontological answer to who we are, let alone try to define the essence of a transcendent God. Yet I think the transcendence of God does have temporal foundation. And that when our temporal foundation combines with the Holy Spirit of God, we can begin to understand the transcendent nature of God, though articulating it is a challenge.