What does God look like?

[attofishpi]

My dog...Canis Major.

Rarely I have to take my Orion belt to him, he mostly behaves, most of the time. Unfortunately, unlike a child one cannot reason with a dog, thus one must inflict a little pain when ones canine strays from the path of..

...what is good for him.

[Fairy]

My dog...Canis Major.

Rarely I have to take my Orion belt to him, he mostly behaves, most of the time. Unfortunately, unlike a child one cannot reason with a dog, thus one must inflict a little pain when ones canine strays from the path of..

...what is good for him.

[Fairy]

More sightings of God

Made in our image. An image of the imageless.

gettyimages-1131943838-612x612.jpg

[margii]

Remembering you can only see an image of something, when that image appears to be external to the one who is looking. Then you also have to remember, can the one looking ever be able to see an image of what is looking or imagine an image of what is looking, without that image looking as though it is existing externally to the one looking which cannot see itself.

If God hasn't got an image, in the same context, the looker hasn't got an image. Then who exactly is looking at an image?

Feel free to post an image of what you think God looks like?

Then feel free to post an image of what you think you look like? if you are known to be the looker that cannot see it's own face.

If we exist, it is because something makes non-existence manifest as existence.
But non-existence is the only absolute, unthinkable for our intellect, but we can intuit it.

If everything that exists is relative, it is because there is something that is absolute: relativity is such, as opposed to non-relativity.
If the absolute is the invariable, unqualifiable, unquantifiable, it cannot be the consequence of anything. And if the relative exists, it is the existence of everything, it cannot be the cause of anything, because the relative is as such in function of the non-relative.
The non-relative, the absolute, is the cause of the relative, of the manifested, of the Cosmos.
But the relative cannot exist by itself, because it is a consequence, it is not a cause. Therefore, the absolute maintains the existence of the relative.
Both, absolute and everything relative, I call God.
Therefore, everything we see, perceive, what we do not know, etc., everything, absolutely everything, is God manifested. And the absolute, which we cannot think, is God not manifested.

[Fairy]

Remembering you can only see an image of something, when that image appears to be external to the one who is looking. Then you also have to remember, can the one looking ever be able to see an image of what is looking or imagine an image of what is looking, without that image looking as though it is existing externally to the one looking which cannot see itself.

If God hasn't got an image, in the same context, the looker hasn't got an image. Then who exactly is looking at an image?

Feel free to post an image of what you think God looks like?

Then feel free to post an image of what you think you look like? if you are known to be the looker that cannot see it's own face.

If we exist, it is because something makes non-existence manifest as existence.
But non-existence is the only absolute, unthinkable for our intellect, but we can intuit it.

If everything that exists is relative, it is because there is something that is absolute: relativity is such, as opposed to non-relativity.
If the absolute is the invariable, unqualifiable, unquantifiable, it cannot be the consequence of anything. And if the relative exists, it is the existence of everything, it cannot be the cause of anything, because the relative is as such in function of the non-relative.
The non-relative, the absolute, is the cause of the relative, of the manifested, of the Cosmos.
But the relative cannot exist by itself, because it is a consequence, it is not a cause. Therefore, the absolute maintains the existence of the relative.
Both, absolute and everything relative, I call God.
Therefore, everything we see, perceive, what we do not know, etc., everything, absolutely everything, is God manifested. And the absolute, which we cannot think, is God not manifested.

Very good.

The relative cannot know the absolute.

And the absolute cannot know the relative.

What are you're thought on that?

[attofishpi]

..penises have their place within society.

What do you think?

[margii]

Remembering you can only see an image of something, when that image appears to be external to the one who is looking. Then you also have to remember, can the one looking ever be able to see an image of what is looking or imagine an image of what is looking, without that image looking as though it is existing externally to the one looking which cannot see itself.

If God hasn't got an image, in the same context, the looker hasn't got an image. Then who exactly is looking at an image?

Feel free to post an image of what you think God looks like?

Then feel free to post an image of what you think you look like? if you are known to be the looker that cannot see it's own face.

If we exist, it is because something makes non-existence manifest as existence.
But non-existence is the only absolute, unthinkable for our intellect, but we can intuit it.

If everything that exists is relative, it is because there is something that is absolute: relativity is such, as opposed to non-relativity.
If the absolute is the invariable, unqualifiable, unquantifiable, it cannot be the consequence of anything. And if the relative exists, it is the existence of everything, it cannot be the cause of anything, because the relative is as such in function of the non-relative.
The non-relative, the absolute, is the cause of the relative, of the manifested, of the Cosmos.
But the relative cannot exist by itself, because it is a consequence, it is not a cause. Therefore, the absolute maintains the existence of the relative.
Both, absolute and everything relative, I call God.
Therefore, everything we see, perceive, what we do not know, etc., everything, absolutely everything, is God manifested. And the absolute, which we cannot think, is God not manifested.

Very good.

The relative cannot know the absolute.

And the absolute cannot know the relative.

What are you're thought on that?

Your question is very interesting... but I think, has an essential internal error: we are part of relativity, so we can only say that the absolute is not relative.

If the relative exists, it is because something maintains it... and I believe that the relationship between the absolute and the relative is that of creator and controller and of created and controlled.

It is a one-way relationship, the absolute is the cause of everything, everything is maintained by the absolute...

And this is the only possibility to explain where the universal laws come from, such as gravity, electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychic, etc.

[Fairy]

If we exist, it is because something makes non-existence manifest as existence.
But non-existence is the only absolute, unthinkable for our intellect, but we can intuit it.

If everything that exists is relative, it is because there is something that is absolute: relativity is such, as opposed to non-relativity.
If the absolute is the invariable, unqualifiable, unquantifiable, it cannot be the consequence of anything. And if the relative exists, it is the existence of everything, it cannot be the cause of anything, because the relative is as such in function of the non-relative.
The non-relative, the absolute, is the cause of the relative, of the manifested, of the Cosmos.
But the relative cannot exist by itself, because it is a consequence, it is not a cause. Therefore, the absolute maintains the existence of the relative.
Both, absolute and everything relative, I call God.
Therefore, everything we see, perceive, what we do not know, etc., everything, absolutely everything, is God manifested. And the absolute, which we cannot think, is God not manifested.

Very good.

The relative cannot know the absolute.

And the absolute cannot know the relative.

What are you're thought on that?

Your question is very interesting... but I think, has an essential internal error: we are part of relativity, so we can only say that the absolute is not relative.

If the relative exists, it is because something maintains it... and I believe that the relationship between the absolute and the relative is that of creator and controller and of created and controlled.

It is a one-way relationship, the absolute is the cause of everything, everything is maintained by the absolute...

And this is the only possibility to explain where the universal laws come from, such as gravity, electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychic, etc.

I agree with this...but wonder why the question has an essential internal error.

Would you like to clarify what you mean by an internal error?

[margii]

Very good.

The relative cannot know the absolute.

And the absolute cannot know the relative.

What are you're thought on that?

Your question is very interesting... but I think, has an essential internal error: we are part of relativity, so we can only say that the absolute is not relative.

If the relative exists, it is because something maintains it... and I believe that the relationship between the absolute and the relative is that of creator and controller and of created and controlled.

It is a one-way relationship, the absolute is the cause of everything, everything is maintained by the absolute...

And this is the only possibility to explain where the universal laws come from, such as gravity, electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychic, etc.

I agree with this...but wonder why the question has an essential internal error.

Would you like to clarify what you mean by an internal error?

Sure...

You said that the absolute cannot know the relative...

Thinking is a process, and every process implies relationships, relativity. Therefore, we cannot think about the absolute, because the absolute is not relative.

To "think" the absolute we should be in the absolute state, not in the relative state that we are in.

Therefore, the only thing we can say about the absolute is that it is not relative, it is the only thing we can think,... we can never know if the absolute knows or does not know about the relative, but we can say that the absolute is the cause of everything, therefore, in our intellect, we should conclude that the absolute knows everything that exists about the relative, because it creates it and maintains it... but only in this way could we say it, because our minds are relative, they process relatively (thought), and everything relative is finite, limited.

I see it from the concept of infinity... we cannot think of infinity, that is why in mathematics, infinity is a tendency, never a number to which a characteristic can be given, a quantification.

Obviously, the absolute has no end, no cause, so in our intellectual conception, we can say that it is infinite.

We can only think of the absolute, I repeat saying that it is everything that is not relative, and it is the cause and controller of the relative. That is, by the negative and by the unidirectional cause and effect, as the root cause of everything.

[Fairy]

Your question is very interesting... but I think, has an essential internal error: we are part of relativity, so we can only say that the absolute is not relative.

If the relative exists, it is because something maintains it... and I believe that the relationship between the absolute and the relative is that of creator and controller and of created and controlled.

It is a one-way relationship, the absolute is the cause of everything, everything is maintained by the absolute...

And this is the only possibility to explain where the universal laws come from, such as gravity, electromagnetic, chemical, biological, psychic, etc.

I agree with this...but wonder why the question has an essential internal error.

Would you like to clarify what you mean by an internal error?

Sure...

You said that the absolute cannot know the relative...

Thinking is a process, and every process implies relationships, relativity. Therefore, we cannot think about the absolute, because the absolute is not relative.

To "think" the absolute we should be in the absolute state, not in the relative state that we are in.

Therefore, the only thing we can say about the absolute is that it is not relative, it is the only thing we can think,... we can never know if the absolute knows or does not know about the relative, but we can say that the absolute is the cause of everything, therefore, in our intellect, we should conclude that the absolute knows everything that exists about the relative, because it creates it and maintains it... but only in this way could we say it, because our minds are relative, they process relatively (thought), and everything relative is finite, limited.

I see it from the concept of infinity... we cannot think of infinity, that is why in mathematics, infinity is a tendency, never a number to which a characteristic can be given, a quantification.

Obviously, the absolute has no end, no cause, so in our intellectual conception, we can say that it is infinite.

We can only think of the absolute, I repeat saying that it is everything that is not relative, and it is the cause and controller of the relative. That is, by the negative and by the unidirectional cause and effect, as the root cause of everything.

Thank you.

Would you agree then that ''Knowing'' is just an activity of the mind?

[margii]

I agree with this...but wonder why the question has an essential internal error.

Would you like to clarify what you mean by an internal error?

Sure...

You said that the absolute cannot know the relative...

Thinking is a process, and every process implies relationships, relativity. Therefore, we cannot think about the absolute, because the absolute is not relative.

To "think" the absolute we should be in the absolute state, not in the relative state that we are in.

Therefore, the only thing we can say about the absolute is that it is not relative, it is the only thing we can think,... we can never know if the absolute knows or does not know about the relative, but we can say that the absolute is the cause of everything, therefore, in our intellect, we should conclude that the absolute knows everything that exists about the relative, because it creates it and maintains it... but only in this way could we say it, because our minds are relative, they process relatively (thought), and everything relative is finite, limited.

I see it from the concept of infinity... we cannot think of infinity, that is why in mathematics, infinity is a tendency, never a number to which a characteristic can be given, a quantification.

Obviously, the absolute has no end, no cause, so in our intellectual conception, we can say that it is infinite.

We can only think of the absolute, I repeat saying that it is everything that is not relative, and it is the cause and controller of the relative. That is, by the negative and by the unidirectional cause and effect, as the root cause of everything.

Thank you.

Would you agree then that ''Knowing'' is just an activity of the mind?

Yes, I agree... for me everything that is change, process, be it for example thinking, knowing, is the realm of relativity.
I believe that in "the creative plan" of the absolute, that state decided that the relative is framed in a process of ordered and evolutionary change, and thought/knowledge is a very deep state, superior to the state, for example, of unicellular or even further back, of stones, which have their existence, but without mental processes which we call thought/knowledge.


I want to clarify that all the words related to the absolute are not adequate, but unfortunately there is no other possibility than to use them... saying that the absolute thinks, decides, has a plan, is obviously incorrect because these words or whatever belong to the world of relativity, of consequence and not of cause and origin, but unfortunately I have to use them in reasoning.

[Fairy]

Sure...

You said that the absolute cannot know the relative...

Thinking is a process, and every process implies relationships, relativity. Therefore, we cannot think about the absolute, because the absolute is not relative.

To "think" the absolute we should be in the absolute state, not in the relative state that we are in.

Therefore, the only thing we can say about the absolute is that it is not relative, it is the only thing we can think,... we can never know if the absolute knows or does not know about the relative, but we can say that the absolute is the cause of everything, therefore, in our intellect, we should conclude that the absolute knows everything that exists about the relative, because it creates it and maintains it... but only in this way could we say it, because our minds are relative, they process relatively (thought), and everything relative is finite, limited.

I see it from the concept of infinity... we cannot think of infinity, that is why in mathematics, infinity is a tendency, never a number to which a characteristic can be given, a quantification.

Obviously, the absolute has no end, no cause, so in our intellectual conception, we can say that it is infinite.

We can only think of the absolute, I repeat saying that it is everything that is not relative, and it is the cause and controller of the relative. That is, by the negative and by the unidirectional cause and effect, as the root cause of everything.

Thank you.

Would you agree then that ''Knowing'' is just an activity of the mind?

Yes, I agree... for me everything that is change, process, be it for example thinking, knowing, is the realm of relativity.
I believe that in "the creative plan" of the absolute, that state decided that the relative is framed in a process of ordered and evolutionary change, and thought/knowledge is a very deep state, superior to the state, for example, of unicellular or even further back, of stones, which have their existence, but without mental processes which we call thought/knowledge.


I want to clarify that all the words related to the absolute are not adequate, but unfortunately there is no other possibility than to use them... saying that the absolute thinks, decides, has a plan, is obviously incorrect because these words or whatever belong to the world of relativity, of consequence and not of cause and origin, but unfortunately I have to use them in reasoning.

Beautifully said. I couldn't agree more.

[Fairy]

..penises have their place within society.

What do you think?

I think you are over thinking this