Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:31 am How do you understand it? Do you see how the same passage can have meanings that will resonate with different qualities of intelligence?

You seem to have rather eccentric, esoteric readings of things. Honestly, I can't anticipate where you're going with all this. What does "resonate with different qualities of intelligence" mean? I can't imagine.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm It is nothing more than nature.
That is no "God" at all.

But this ineffable reality is no God at all, but I'll call it Nature.
You got your head caught in the tigers mouth.

''Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.''

.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:27 pm
In fact, I am quite often very surprised that I am NOT questioned and challenged over some of the claims I make.

For example, when I say, "I know God exists", I can very easily and very simply provide ALL the proofs and evidence to back up and support this irrefutable claim.

Being able to provide proofs and evidence, especially in a philosophy forum, I do NOT find silly at all.

We can all provide proofs and evidence in regard to the God of our own understanding.

How will we show our proofs and evidence via words, when God is ineffable ?
Or, shall we ALL stand out in the wide open space naked as the day we were born and bring all our GODS with us and just hope they all match up?

Or, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So why ask for proof and evidence when every word is already proof and evidence of God...what more proof or evidence could one provide??

.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:27 pm
But if some one can not substantiate and can not provide the proof and evidence for what they claim is true, then WHY do they say it at all, in the beginning?

Do they just want us to accept what they say, as though IT IS THE TRUTH?

The truth is within the eye of the beholder.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Proof and evidence is self-evident, there is nothing else to learn or garner from another, imho. Truth in within you only.
I AM is the irrefutable truth.

Other is also you...to perhaps remind you of what you already know.

.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:21 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:58 pmWhat's more important is this: are we, as human beings, as souls, as contingent beings in the presence of the Necessary One, willing to take a role subordinate to God, or will we insist on being the creators, the initiators, the lords ourselves. That's what it comes down to.

This is a good point IC

I think we have to die before we can do that..don't you agree? but who wants to die? what you say?

Well, I think that the only place we can decide what we will do is here, right now. Because when we do see God, there will no longer be any possibility of choosing to disbelieve. By then, though, one's attitude to God will long ago have been settled here, on Earth, where the playing field seemed level, and people could choose not merely to believe but also, should they determine to do so, to disbelieve.

That's the terms of human freedom to know and love God. They can choose here and now. This is why Paul writes, "Behold, now is 'the acceptable time,' behold, now is 'the day of salvation.'" Now. Not later.

The opportunity of choice is only available while there is not an overwhelmingly compelling reason to be forced to accept the existence of God. His physical presence or manifestation would certainly do that -- to anyone -- with the side effect that freedom to think otherwise would be rendered instantly absurd and impossible. That's why it can't be after we die. After we die, we know.

However, now, it seems God's interested in us being free to choose Him or not. But that offer's not on the table indefinitely, because seeing God ends it...not merely empirically, but analytically and absolutely.

Very well put, I totally agree with this. Thanks IC

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 pm For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man.

People mistook the reflection in the mirror to be their face.
But it's not the image of man in the mirror,it's the image of God the imageless, nameless ONE refecting back at itself.
The narcissist was vain and selfish, the trouble wasn't started by GOD, it was started by attaching misidentification with the face in the mirror to become peronalised, when the formless nameless one became two as it appeared to itself in form. The mirror informed the formless of it's formless form.

God is formless imageless reflecting as and through it's own image formed...conceptually.

It's the same ONE non-conceptual concept in this IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

________

Sophia

By those who love her she is readily seen,

And found by those who look for her...

in every thought of theirs, she comes to meet them.

-Wisdom of Solomon

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:14 am
If nature is just a reacting machine, what IYO created the universal laws which enable the living machine we call universe to function? Laws do not create themselves. If there is no conscious source, how did they come to be?

They came to be via knowledge. In the reenactment of history. HIS STORY

You are writing and reading HIS STORY at the same time. Only the effects / reactions are KNOWN...

Who is writing and reading the HIS STORY book? ..answer: the ONE that comes after the original author...of which there are many.



.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:31 amWhat does it mean for the Son to be in the father and the Father to be in the Son Can we go further to say that Man can be in the Son or the mediator between God and Man?

There is no middle man involved here. Reality is manifesting all at ONCE one without a second. God has no relations, he's an only child in relation to himself alone. He is his own mother, father, child, and imaginary friend to boot.

Intelligence is an artifically contrived concept. Reality doesn't require to be intelligence to be what it is. Where's the intelligence in a tsunami wiping off the face of the earth thousands of innocent men woman and children and animal? God is an earthquake too.

The Reality of the universe strives to be functional and to work effectively and efficiently; which it does pretty much, that is, as far as I can see it.
I have never known or witnessed the entire collapse of the whole structure that is this living universe have you?

More to the point, I am, the one I think I am, is not making any of this universe happen. As far as I KNOW, that which did the big bang is doing me. Was there intelligent people around at the time of the big bang?

The big bang is right NOW the only place there is.



.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:14 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:26 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 pm

For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man. It creates the personal God and all the problems that arise when people argue over whose side this personal god is on.

My interest is in the eventual natural reconciliation of the goals of science and religion. The fact that they seem opposed is just proof of our stupidity. In reality we do not know what Man is much less what God is. If we did there would be no division between the facts of the world revealed by science and the universal values sustaining our great universe and all life within it.

We have two great questions: what is God and what is Man. Einstein's intelligence accepts God as consicious intelligence which creates this great living machine we cdll universe. rather than a person worried about what I do. It is a beginning and invites us to learn the dynamics of universal values and the responsibility of Man within them.

No way.
Spinoza/Einstein's God is not "interested" or conscious. "He" does not create. Has no need or desire and no concern about human activity. It is nothing more than nature.
That is no "God" at all.

If nature is just a reacting machine, what IYO created the universal laws?

If you think something MORE remarkable and unlikely created the universal laws, can you tell me what created that?
What makes you think that there was ever a time when universal laws did not already exist?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:15 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm It is nothing more than nature.
That is no "God" at all.

But this ineffable reality is no God at all, but I'll call it Nature.
You got your head caught in the tigers mouth.

''Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.''

.

God is the name of a person. I think Nature does not have to bear that burden of proof.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 10:59 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:31 amWhat does it mean for the Son to be in the father and the Father to be in the Son Can we go further to say that Man can be in the Son or the mediator between God and Man?

There is no middle man involved here. Reality is manifesting all at ONCE one without a second. God has no relations, he's an only child in relation to himself alone. He is his own mother, father, child, and imaginary friend to boot.

I think the most significant phrase in your post is this " imaginary friend ". Which is exactly what God is to people.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:27 pm
In fact, I am quite often very surprised that I am NOT questioned and challenged over some of the claims I make.

For example, when I say, "I know God exists", I can very easily and very simply provide ALL the proofs and evidence to back up and support this irrefutable claim.

Being able to provide proofs and evidence, especially in a philosophy forum, I do NOT find silly at all.

We can all provide proofs and evidence in regard to the God of our own understanding.

How will we show our proofs and evidence via words, when God is ineffable ?

But WHY would you say 'God' is ineffable?

'God' might be ineffable to 'you', but 'God' is NOT ineffable, to me, at all.

If any one "else" can not express or describe 'God' in words, then that is them, and NOT me.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:32 amOr, shall we ALL stand out in the wide open space naked as the day we were born and bring all our GODS with us and just hope they all match up?

You could organize that if you want to, and just wait to see what happens.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:32 amOr, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I am not sure what you are trying to get across here.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:32 amSo why ask for proof and evidence when every word is already proof and evidence of God...

Why do you say that every word is already proof and evidence of God?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:32 amwhat more proof or evidence could one provide??

.

But 'you' do NOT 'have to' ask for proof of any thing at all. You are free to do whatever you so choose to do.

But I like to ask for what proof and/or evidence does some one have if and when they are claiming some thing to be true.

Also, as I said earlier when you asked me the clarifying question;
Again, why would you want another person to provide proof of God when you already know God?

I said;
Because, to me, their proof might actually substantiate further the proof I have of the God I know, which would be very helpful.

Or, their proof might actually disprove my now previous "proof", and so I will have now learned more, which again would also be very helpful.

Either way IF and WHEN proof is provided, then this can be very helpful, indeed.

And to answer the question you asked me just now;
What more proof or evidence could one provide?

My answer is; I do NOT know until they provide me with what proof or evidence that they do have.

They might be holding the proof or evidence that could then be SHOWN to EVERY one, which would finally put to rest this doubt over whether God exists or not for EVERY one.

EVERY word, in a sense, may be proof and evidence that God exists, but only when the meanings and definitions behind certain words are clearly identified and explained, and then those right words are placed in the right order, then this is when what 'God' actually IS, is explained properly and correctly.

KNOWING God exists is some thing very different from KNOWING what God IS. But having the proof and evidence for what 'God' actually IS AND having the proof and evidence that 'that' God actually EXISTS is even more powerful knowledge to have and share around.

If some one wants to start a thread with the title; Let's talk about GOD!!, why then start saying things like; "God is ineffable", and, "Why would you want another person to provide proof of God"?

If we WANT to talk about 'God', then why not let us talk about what IS 'God'?

If we WANT to talk about 'God', then asking for proof and/or evidence "others" have I do not see as a serious crime in a philosophy forum nor in a thread with the title about.

If some one wants to say that 'God' is ineffable, then, literally, there is really nothing more to be said regarding 'God' from that one.

If some wants to just express their BELIEF that some ineffable 'thing' exists, then so be it. But I, for one, would wonder; How would they, themselves, KNOW some thing exists if they, themselves, can not even express nor describe in words what that thing actually is?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:27 pm
But if some one can not substantiate and can not provide the proof and evidence for what they claim is true, then WHY do they say it at all, in the beginning?

Do they just want us to accept what they say, as though IT IS THE TRUTH?

The truth is within the eye of the beholder.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Proof and evidence is self-evident, there is nothing else to learn or garner from another, imho. Truth in within you only.
I AM is the irrefutable truth.

Other is also you...to perhaps remind you of what you already know.

.

Yes I AM maybe the irrefutable truth. But, then we are back to that old question; 'Who am 'I'?'

When the proper and correct answer to this question is discovered or learned, then ALL of the rest that is said to be ineffable, in the days of when this is written, just fall into place so much easier.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:49 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:31 am How do you understand it? Do you see how the same passage can have meanings that will resonate with different qualities of intelligence?

You seem to have rather eccentric, esoteric readings of things. Honestly, I can't anticipate where you're going with all this. What does "resonate with different qualities of intelligence" mean? I can't imagine.

It only seems odd if you are not used to it. Anyone who resonates with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2 will have experienced the intellectual limitations of natural man which stimulates the hatred for spiritual man. The seeker of truth with a scientific western mind wants to understand how this difference is intellectually experienced. But without experience this desire just leads to hatred for the premise and the effort to interpret it into the PC terms of the day. Experience requires opening to noesis at the expense of the conditioned glorification of the dialectic or associative thought. For many it is too insulting to consider.

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[d]

But we have the mind of Christ.

DAM

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

The problem is that we are not I AM. We are many. We are a mixture rather than a solution. This mixture is not mixed well due to the fallen human condition so have become the "wretched man."