God(s)

[Eodnhoj7]

Being aware of being aware is what God is.

God is an immanent transcendant God.
.

Assuming assumption as assumptive.

[Eodnhoj7]

The God would have to be both physical and metaphysical - one or the other is a lack of omnipresence

There is no requirement for God to be metaphysical or omnipresent - that is simply how human beings choose to describe him
God could just be a physical being with superhuman strength and intelligence with zero metaphysical or omipresent capability

Actually God is a term that is subject to equivocation, and as equivocable to anything we contain this under the word "omnipresent". God is a word, empty of meaning, thus underlying all definitions and is intrinsically a center point of all of them as all words are inherently void of meaning in and of themselves.

[commonsense]

If god is defined by people, by their thoughts and experiences, then what more is there to say?

Of God is defined by people, and people are images (variations) of God, then people defining God is God defining himself within time and space.

What you say can be restated equally, as such:

If God is defined by people, and if people are variations of God, then variations of God define God.

Seems like a trivial definition at best and a recursive definition at the least.

[commonsense]

If god is defined by people, by their thoughts and experiences, then what more is there to say?

For those who have had thoughts and experiences pertaining to God there is no need to explain or define God.

To those who have not, there is no God to explain.

[Eodnhoj7]

If god is defined by people, by their thoughts and experiences, then what more is there to say?

Of God is defined by people, and people are images (variations) of God, then people defining God is God defining himself within time and space.

What you say can be restated.

If God is defined by people, and if people are variations of God, then variations of God define God.

Seems like a trivial definition at best and a recursive definition at the least.

Yes, it can be restated in a variety of ways...and yes the definition is trivial...and so is the next one and the next one...what is not trivial is that the definition is recursive and recursion is definition.

That we know just by "knowing".


Thus God is self reflective by nature.

[jayjacobus]

Of God is defined by people, and people are images (variations) of God, then people defining God is God defining himself within time and space.

What you say can be restated.

If God is defined by people, and if people are variations of God, then variations of God define God.

Seems like a trivial definition at best and a recursive definition at the least.

Yes, it can be restated in a variety of ways...and yes the definition is trivial...and so is the next one and the next one...what is not trivial is that the definition is recursive and recursion is definition.

That we know just by "knowing".


Thus God is self reflective by nature.

There are too many definitions. God goes from 000 to holy, holy, holy and the interpretations of the ancient texts approach infinite.

God is to be experienced but once God is experienced, the experience will be from an unseen source. Is the source the human mind or an external source of a kind (what kind?)

[Eodnhoj7]

What you say can be restated.

If God is defined by people, and if people are variations of God, then variations of God define God.

Seems like a trivial definition at best and a recursive definition at the least.

Yes, it can be restated in a variety of ways...and yes the definition is trivial...and so is the next one and the next one...what is not trivial is that the definition is recursive and recursion is definition.

That we know just by "knowing".


Thus God is self reflective by nature.

There are too many definitions. God goes from 000 to holy, holy, holy and the interpretations of the ancient texts approach infinite.

God is to be experienced but once God is experienced, the experience will be from an unseen source. Is the source the human mind or an external source of a kind (what kind?)

Experience is recursive.

An impression is imprinted on formlessness. This impressed formlessness intern projects variations of the imprinted form. Thus we are left with God being recursive by nature as the reception projection dualism is the grounding of being itself.

God as defined is recursive. But God is not limited to definition.

[bahman]

Argument:

1. All in All as All

2. the particulate as a general and the general as a particulate,

3. pure being yet intrinsically empty as beyond being,

4. unnecessary necessity existing as necessity veiled within the "no-thingness" of the faculties of reason, intuition and action,

5. uncaused cause,

6. self assuming and assumed as the assumption of assumptions,

7. the curvature of space as an omnipresent contextual loop as infinitely repeated void birthing form in all variety through perpetual generation,

8. stillness in the detachment of extremes embodied within pure focus under meditative discipline

9. The order the good and the chaos of the wicked

10. Spontaneous order

11. Infinite mercy through the ruthlessness of ruthlessness

12. The Good in which no evil is present for all darkness is as light.

13. The freedom of the just and the condemnation of the unjust favoring neither the good nor evil man.

14. Awareness of all thought and its simplicity, underlying all complexity

15. Progressive reciprocation as reciprocal progression

16. That which loves love and hates hatred embodying self sacrifice as its identity

17. The imagination of images, yet no image and without illusion

18. The trifold one expressed fourfold,

19. Both defined and undefined as the assumption of paradox projecting paradox, the measurement of paradoxes yet rational and beyond reason.

20. The underlying variable of all variables

21. Passionless passion, branching which gives perpetual fruits yet holds no fruit.

22. The mythos as the grounds for logic, the archetypal tree of analysis which underlies the mythos.

23. Synthetic in nature expressed by a cross and sphere, yet relative to context as absolute.

Discuss.

There is no God, creator. That is because God becomes subject to time if there was a moment at which only God exists and there was also a moment at which God and the creation exist. Time itself is the subject of creation, therefore, we are dealing with a dilemma that says God needs time to create time.

[Eodnhoj7]

Argument:

1. All in All as All

2. the particulate as a general and the general as a particulate,

3. pure being yet intrinsically empty as beyond being,

4. unnecessary necessity existing as necessity veiled within the "no-thingness" of the faculties of reason, intuition and action,

5. uncaused cause,

6. self assuming and assumed as the assumption of assumptions,

7. the curvature of space as an omnipresent contextual loop as infinitely repeated void birthing form in all variety through perpetual generation,

8. stillness in the detachment of extremes embodied within pure focus under meditative discipline

9. The order the good and the chaos of the wicked

10. Spontaneous order

11. Infinite mercy through the ruthlessness of ruthlessness

12. The Good in which no evil is present for all darkness is as light.

13. The freedom of the just and the condemnation of the unjust favoring neither the good nor evil man.

14. Awareness of all thought and its simplicity, underlying all complexity

15. Progressive reciprocation as reciprocal progression

16. That which loves love and hates hatred embodying self sacrifice as its identity

17. The imagination of images, yet no image and without illusion

18. The trifold one expressed fourfold,

19. Both defined and undefined as the assumption of paradox projecting paradox, the measurement of paradoxes yet rational and beyond reason.

20. The underlying variable of all variables

21. Passionless passion, branching which gives perpetual fruits yet holds no fruit.

22. The mythos as the grounds for logic, the archetypal tree of analysis which underlies the mythos.

23. Synthetic in nature expressed by a cross and sphere, yet relative to context as absolute.

Discuss.

There is no God, creator. That is because God becomes subject to time if there was a moment at which only God exists and there was also a moment at which God and the creation exist. Time itself is the subject of creation, therefore, we are dealing with a dilemma that says God needs time to create time.

If God is not above time and subject to time than God is no omnipresent. Considering time is tautological in nature, as in one thing is expressed many ways (stone, people, even words), then time is circular and as circular subject to a form beyond itself. This circularity is reflected through an infinite variety of loops as a reflection of one loop as looping is constant.

The ancient philosophers observed this in nature and within man's up and down moods, more modern philosophers, specifically wittgenstein, observed this in the tautological nature of symbols (one symbol manifests into a variation of that symbol).

[jayjacobus]

If God is not above time and subject to time than God is no omnipresent. Considering time is tautological in nature, as in one thing is expressed many ways (stone, people, even words), then time is circular and as circular subject to a form beyond itself. This circularity is reflected through an infinite variety of loops as a reflection of one loop as looping is constant.

The ancient philosophers observed this in nature and within man's up and down moods, more modern philosophers, specifically wittgenstein, observed this in the tautological nature of symbols (one symbol manifests into a variation of that symbol).

Tautological in explanations maybe but time seems to have different explanations that are often contradictory and wrong.

[bahman]

Argument:

1. All in All as All

2. the particulate as a general and the general as a particulate,

3. pure being yet intrinsically empty as beyond being,

4. unnecessary necessity existing as necessity veiled within the "no-thingness" of the faculties of reason, intuition and action,

5. uncaused cause,

6. self assuming and assumed as the assumption of assumptions,

7. the curvature of space as an omnipresent contextual loop as infinitely repeated void birthing form in all variety through perpetual generation,

8. stillness in the detachment of extremes embodied within pure focus under meditative discipline

9. The order the good and the chaos of the wicked

10. Spontaneous order

11. Infinite mercy through the ruthlessness of ruthlessness

12. The Good in which no evil is present for all darkness is as light.

13. The freedom of the just and the condemnation of the unjust favoring neither the good nor evil man.

14. Awareness of all thought and its simplicity, underlying all complexity

15. Progressive reciprocation as reciprocal progression

16. That which loves love and hates hatred embodying self sacrifice as its identity

17. The imagination of images, yet no image and without illusion

18. The trifold one expressed fourfold,

19. Both defined and undefined as the assumption of paradox projecting paradox, the measurement of paradoxes yet rational and beyond reason.

20. The underlying variable of all variables

21. Passionless passion, branching which gives perpetual fruits yet holds no fruit.

22. The mythos as the grounds for logic, the archetypal tree of analysis which underlies the mythos.

23. Synthetic in nature expressed by a cross and sphere, yet relative to context as absolute.

Discuss.

There is no God, creator. That is because God becomes subject to time if there was a moment at which only God exists and there was also a moment at which God and the creation exist. Time itself is the subject of creation, therefore, we are dealing with a dilemma that says God needs time to create time.

If God is not above time and subject to time than God is no omnipresent. Considering time is tautological in nature, as in one thing is expressed many ways (stone, people, even words), then time is circular and as circular subject to a form beyond itself. This circularity is reflected through an infinite variety of loops as a reflection of one loop as looping is constant.

The ancient philosophers observed this in nature and within man's up and down moods, more modern philosophers, specifically wittgenstein, observed this in the tautological nature of symbols (one symbol manifests into a variation of that symbol).

Yes, God is not omnipresent too. The very definition of God, the agent that brings something out of nothing, brings subjectivity over time.

[Eodnhoj7]

If God is not above time and subject to time than God is no omnipresent. Considering time is tautological in nature, as in one thing is expressed many ways (stone, people, even words), then time is circular and as circular subject to a form beyond itself. This circularity is reflected through an infinite variety of loops as a reflection of one loop as looping is constant.

The ancient philosophers observed this in nature and within man's up and down moods, more modern philosophers, specifically wittgenstein, observed this in the tautological nature of symbols (one symbol manifests into a variation of that symbol).

Tautological in explanations maybe but time seems to have different explanations that are often contradictory and wrong.

Time it tautological. We see one phenomena replicated into many variations.

Stone to many stones. (Elements of various sorts).
Organisms to many organisms.
Evolution.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no God, creator. That is because God becomes subject to time if there was a moment at which only God exists and there was also a moment at which God and the creation exist. Time itself is the subject of creation, therefore, we are dealing with a dilemma that says God needs time to create time.

If God is not above time and subject to time than God is no omnipresent. Considering time is tautological in nature, as in one thing is expressed many ways (stone, people, even words), then time is circular and as circular subject to a form beyond itself. This circularity is reflected through an infinite variety of loops as a reflection of one loop as looping is constant.

The ancient philosophers observed this in nature and within man's up and down moods, more modern philosophers, specifically wittgenstein, observed this in the tautological nature of symbols (one symbol manifests into a variation of that symbol).

Yes, God is not omnipresent too. The very definition of God, the agent that brings something out of nothing, brings subjectivity over time.

Really, void negating itself into being is only subjective?

In physics a vacuum negates itself into randomly appearing particles....being does come from nothing.

[bahman]

If God is not above time and subject to time than God is no omnipresent. Considering time is tautological in nature, as in one thing is expressed many ways (stone, people, even words), then time is circular and as circular subject to a form beyond itself. This circularity is reflected through an infinite variety of loops as a reflection of one loop as looping is constant.

The ancient philosophers observed this in nature and within man's up and down moods, more modern philosophers, specifically wittgenstein, observed this in the tautological nature of symbols (one symbol manifests into a variation of that symbol).

Yes, God is not omnipresent too. The very definition of God, the agent that brings something out of nothing, brings subjectivity over time.

Really, void negating itself into being is only subjective?

In physics a vacuum negates itself into randomly appearing particles....being does come from nothing.

Void negating itself into something is objective. It is a phenomenon that occurs constantly.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, God is not omnipresent too. The very definition of God, the agent that brings something out of nothing, brings subjectivity over time.

Really, void negating itself into being is only subjective?

In physics a vacuum negates itself into randomly appearing particles....being does come from nothing.

Void negating itself into something is objective. It is a phenomenon that occurs constantly.

And the subconscious, void, does not negate itself into consciousness?

Emptying the mind does not result in spontaneous images and forms appearing form nowhere, no different than the vaccuum in physics.