Who?What Is God?

[Fairy]

Everything is an idea. Start with that idea first.

What is an idea?

That question has been addressed by a philosopher, Wittgenstein, who claims the meaning of a word is its use.


Next question, Fairy: I suggest you ask an easier question more suited to a beginner. "Does my keyboard exist physically, or is my keyboard an idea in my mind ? Or both?"

To do philosophy properly you then would support your claim with a valid argument .

The keyboard can exist as both. As a thought presumably inside me, and simultaneously as a physical object outside of me.

Now all you have to do B is find the dividing line between the outside and inside of me?

Good luck on your quest.

[Fairy]

What do you mean by "in complete control"?

With all due respect… God-Realise, this is First Business.

Know that unless I live properly, this is not possible.

[promethean75]

To go placidly amid the noise and haste,.remembering what peace there may be in silence? You mean like that?

[Fairy]

To go placidly amid the noise and haste,.remembering what peace there may be in silence? You mean like that?

https://youtu.be/ix_JdtQaX0A?si=Lf70q6ahLGVMu7ui

Vis Mortis


"The eyes of the many rest in the courage of the few"

[Fairy]

We literally die for Love.

For what we Love, because Love is the only real and true power.

[Age]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

[Belinda]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

Plenty to critique there. Not that Age is open in any way to that, he cannot be tutored. He cannot have a truly open and honest discussion.

The visible universe is a diminishing attenuating fragment of the deep past of one universe of infinite from eternity; of nature, grounded in God.

Panentheistic. In the Spirit.

Nature is not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is meaningless.

Neither is God of course.

Nature is an aspect of the will of God, Who is all. He has no choice in the... matter obviously. As with supernature, which Age omits.

There is no argument.

No discussion to be had.

[Age]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

Which 'decent academic course/s' do you recommend?

[Age]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

Plenty to critique there. Not that Age is open in any way to that, he cannot be tutored. He cannot have a truly open and honest discussion.

The visible universe is a diminishing attenuating fragment of the deep past of one universe of infinite from eternity; of nature, grounded in God.

Panentheistic. In the Spirit.

Nature is not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is meaningless.

Neither is God of course.

Nature is an aspect of the will of God, Who is all. He has no choice in the... matter obviously. As with supernature, which Age omits.

There is no argument.

No discussion to be had.

Spoken from one who is obviously absolutely closed.

See, only one who is absolutely closed would believe, absolutely, that another is not able to have an open and honest discussion without even beginning to try and have one with them.

Now, "martin peter clarke", believer that I am not open in any way, you claim that the visible Universe is some so-called 'fragment' of 'the' deep past of one universe of infinite from eternity, which is just saying, in a very clumsy way to me, that there is just One Universe, and One Universe, only, which is infinite and eternal. So, if there is any actual difference, then will you explain how, and why, exactly?

If no, then why not?

you also said and claimed that that One Universe is so-called 'grounded in God'. What does the God word even mean, to you, exactly? When you use the God word what are you referring to, exactly?

Show the readers, here, that you are even able to be open and honest, now.

Why did you say and write, 'Nature is not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is meaningless'?

What are you even referring to, exactly, and what does 'this' even mean, exactly?

Show 'us' how open 'you' really are "martin peter clarke".

you also say and claim that, 'Neither is God, of course'. Are you, here, implying that God is neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent, as well?

Either way did you already inform 'us', readers, here, of who and what the God word to you is referring to, exactly?

If no, then why not?

you claim that, 'Nature is an aspect of the will of God'.

Hopefully, you have not been closed, and have been open, and have already informed 'us' of what God is, to 'you', exactly. But, even if you have not, then because I am Truly open 'I' will still ask 'you', here, now, 'What do you mean by 'the will of God', exactly?

Are you open, and honest, enough to inform the readers what 'you' mean, exactly?

you say and write, 'Who is all'. Are you referring to God, here?

If yes, then if 'God is all', then how and why is God, to you anyway, not omnipotent, nor omnipresent? After all that is what you said and claimed previously, correct?

Did you refer to God as a "he"?

Obviously God could not be and would not be 'gendered'. So, why do you adult human beings keep calling God, a "he" for, exactly?

Now, the very reason why you do it is very simple and very easy to come to know, and understand.

you say and write, 'He has no choice in the... matter obviously.'

What is 'this' in regards to, exactly?

you speak and write very vaguely "martin peter clarke". Have you ever considered being more specific in your choice of words, here?

you then said and claimed, 'As with supernature, which Age omits.'

you say 'this' like there is some actual thing, which is 'supernature'. What do you even mean, exactly, by this term and phrase, by you, here?

And, obviously one can not 'omit' some thing that they never knew of, before.

you then go on to say and claim, There is no argument. Which is another sign of just how Truly closed you really are.

And then you go and say and write, 'No discussion to be had'. Which only proves further how much of a closed human being 'you' really are, here, "martin peter clarke".

you actually believe that your own views and beliefs are the only ones worth discussing, and any other view, or belief, is not even worthy of 'looking at', and 'discussing'.

This thread's title is, 'Who and/or what is God'.

Let 'us' see your views and beliefs, here, about who and/or what is God, exactly.

Show 'us' that you really are Truly open and honest, here.

And, if you do not, then who is 'the one', here, who is Truly closed will be blatantly obvious.

'I' have asked 'you' some questions, for clarification purposes, from a Truly open perspective. Let 'us' see if you have the same ability.

[Belinda]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

Which 'decent academic course/s' do you recommend?

ChatGPT:-

If you’re looking for a gentle, academic introduction to philosophy online, there are a couple of good options:

Oxford University (Department for Continuing Education) runs a fully online, tutor-led course called Introduction to Philosophy. It lasts 10 weeks, is designed for complete beginners, and includes guided discussions plus feedback on short assignments. Cost is £385 (or £415 if you’d like to earn official university credit). Concessionary fees are available for some UK learners.

[Belinda]

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

Now, is there any thing, here, which any one could refute or 'argue' against?

If yes, then let 'us' have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

If no, then who and what God is, exactly, 'I' have just expressed and described.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

Plenty to critique there. Not that Age is open in any way to that, he cannot be tutored. He cannot have a truly open and honest discussion.

The visible universe is a diminishing attenuating fragment of the deep past of one universe of infinite from eternity; of nature, grounded in God.

Panentheistic. In the Spirit.

Nature is not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is meaningless.

Neither is God of course.

Nature is an aspect of the will of God, Who is all. He has no choice in the... matter obviously. As with supernature, which Age omits.

There is no argument.

No discussion to be had.

If I may, I advise you to write in sentences until such time as you are a famous author.

You have some good ideas but you are not sufficiently critical of your own ideas.

[Belinda]

You should enlist in a tutored course of study. You have thought out a pantheist claim all by yourself , which indicates that you are intelligent enough to make good use of a decent academic course. Forgive me for interfering; I was a teacher in a former life.

Plenty to critique there. Not that Age is open in any way to that, he cannot be tutored. He cannot have a truly open and honest discussion.

The visible universe is a diminishing attenuating fragment of the deep past of one universe of infinite from eternity; of nature, grounded in God.

Panentheistic. In the Spirit.

Nature is not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is meaningless.

Neither is God of course.

Nature is an aspect of the will of God, Who is all. He has no choice in the... matter obviously. As with supernature, which Age omits.

There is no argument.

No discussion to be had.

If I may, I advise you to write in sentences until such time as you are a famous author.

You have some good ideas but you are not sufficiently critical of your own ideas.I apologise for generalising but your style is making it hard to discuss with you.

[Fairy]

Criticism is a very selfish practice.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Plenty to critique there. Not that Age is open in any way to that, he cannot be tutored. He cannot have a truly open and honest discussion.

The visible universe is a diminishing attenuating fragment of the deep past of one universe of infinite from eternity; of nature, grounded in God.

Panentheistic. In the Spirit.

Nature is not omnipotent, omnipresent. That is meaningless.

Neither is God of course.

Nature is an aspect of the will of God, Who is all. He has no choice in the... matter obviously. As with supernature, which Age omits.

There is no argument.

No discussion to be had.

If I may, I advise you to write in sentences until such time as you are a famous author.

You have some good ideas but you are not sufficiently critical of your own ideas.I apologise for generalising but your style is making it hard to discuss with you.

I responded to Age's points by way of yourself. It's easy to correlate my answers with them. Happy to discuss any with you. My ideas are simplest. St. William of Occam is my patron saint, along with Puddleglum.