Philosophy Now Forum

I think theists need to clarify this once and for all. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Choose one. And stick by it. You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense". Because that implies that God is NOT everywhere in other senses. If God is everywhere, then He is in every atom or my body. That would make me a part of God.

If, however, it does not make me a part of God, then you need to explain why it does not make me a part of God.

You also then need to explain why God sends a part of himself to heaven and other parts of himself to hell. You also need to explain why certain parts of God commit evil and other parts do not. You also need to explain why God only saves certain parts of himself and does not save other parts of himself.

Why does God want parts of himself to worship him? If God is everywhere which Gods are the false Gods and how are they false Gods if God is everywhere? Is God not there in ANY SENSE in those false Gods? If so, does that mean God is not everywhere in a certain sense? Does is mean that there are places where there is no God in any sense whatsoever?

Why does God perform miracles on parts of himself while excluding vast parts of himself from such miracles?

Why do parts of God believe in God and other parts of God not believe in Him?

If God is in every atom of me, what does the soul do? Is that an extra God in me somewhere?

But basically, is there God everywhere or is he not? If not, in what sense is he NOT everywhere?

sthitapragya wrote:I think theists need to clarify this once and for all. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Choose one. And stick by it. You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense". Because that implies that God is NOT everywhere in other senses. If God is everywhere, then He is in every atom or my body. That would make me a part of God.

If, however, it does not make me a part of God, then you need to explain why it does not make me a part of God.

You also then need to explain why God sends a part of himself to heaven and other parts of himself to hell. You also need to explain why certain parts of God commit evil and other parts do not. You also need to explain why God only saves certain parts of himself and does not save other parts of himself.

Why does God want parts of himself to worship him? If God is everywhere which Gods are the false Gods and how are they false Gods if God is everywhere? Is God not there in ANY SENSE in those false Gods? If so, does that mean God is not everywhere in a certain sense? Does is mean that there are places where there is no God in any sense whatsoever?

Why does God perform miracles on parts of himself while excluding vast parts of himself from such miracles?

Why do parts of God believe in God and other parts of God not believe in Him?

If God is in every atom of me, what does the soul do? Is that an extra God in me somewhere?

But basically, is there God everywhere or is he not? If not, in what sense is he NOT everywhere?

Dimwit.

The Inglorious One wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I think theists need to clarify this once and for all. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Choose one. And stick by it. You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense". Because that implies that God is NOT everywhere in other senses. If God is everywhere, then He is in every atom or my body. That would make me a part of God.

If, however, it does not make me a part of God, then you need to explain why it does not make me a part of God.

You also then need to explain why God sends a part of himself to heaven and other parts of himself to hell. You also need to explain why certain parts of God commit evil and other parts do not. You also need to explain why God only saves certain parts of himself and does not save other parts of himself.

Why does God want parts of himself to worship him? If God is everywhere which Gods are the false Gods and how are they false Gods if God is everywhere? Is God not there in ANY SENSE in those false Gods? If so, does that mean God is not everywhere in a certain sense? Does is mean that there are places where there is no God in any sense whatsoever?

Why does God perform miracles on parts of himself while excluding vast parts of himself from such miracles?

Why do parts of God believe in God and other parts of God not believe in Him?

If God is in every atom of me, what does the soul do? Is that an extra God in me somewhere?

But basically, is there God everywhere or is he not? If not, in what sense is he NOT everywhere?

Dimwit.

Remember, as long as you don't explain yourself, you are calling God a dimwit. Keep on at it. I know you are angry because you don't know how to get out of this one. I also know you had never thought of it that way. That is why you could not resist replying with an abuse to God and no real reply. You are cornered. Checkmate.

sthitapragya wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I think theists need to clarify this once and for all. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Choose one. And stick by it. You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense". Because that implies that God is NOT everywhere in other senses. If God is everywhere, then He is in every atom or my body. That would make me a part of God.

If, however, it does not make me a part of God, then you need to explain why it does not make me a part of God.

You also then need to explain why God sends a part of himself to heaven and other parts of himself to hell. You also need to explain why certain parts of God commit evil and other parts do not. You also need to explain why God only saves certain parts of himself and does not save other parts of himself.

Why does God want parts of himself to worship him? If God is everywhere which Gods are the false Gods and how are they false Gods if God is everywhere? Is God not there in ANY SENSE in those false Gods? If so, does that mean God is not everywhere in a certain sense? Does is mean that there are places where there is no God in any sense whatsoever?

Why does God perform miracles on parts of himself while excluding vast parts of himself from such miracles?

Why do parts of God believe in God and other parts of God not believe in Him?

If God is in every atom of me, what does the soul do? Is that an extra God in me somewhere?

But basically, is there God everywhere or is he not? If not, in what sense is he NOT everywhere?

Dimwit.

Remember, as long as you don't explain yourself, you are calling God a dimwit. Keep on at it. I know you are angry because you don't know how to get out of this one. I also know you had never thought of it that way. That is why you could not resist replying with an abuse to God and no real reply. You are cornered. Checkmate.

Dimwit.

The Inglorious One wrote: Dimwit.

Out of interest, Inglorious, why do you think sthitapragya's question is dim-witted?

sthitapragya wrote:I think theists need to clarify this once and for all. Either God is everywhere or he is not.

Excellent questions sthitapragya!

I think Inglorious has Tourette Syndrome, which causes him to blurt out insults (like spasms) without any intelligent explanation. He's probably repeating, like a parrot, what has been said to him.

I, too, have wondered how theists reconcile these questions you asked. Especially since a significant number of theists can be so shockingly intolerant and critical of their god's supposed creations. You'd think they'd be so full of love at the glory and beauty of it all, wouldn't you? Heck... I AM... and I'm not even a theist.

We can see examples of truly loving theists. I love those theists. And then there are the rest. Scary. I've wondered what that's all about. I think they might represent that other component that the Bible stories warn of. Fallen angels who cannot accept what is, and will destroy everything in their quest for position and power. It's all within all of us. Theists are not immune. If anything, they might be emboldened and even more dangerous depending on their particular personality.

And do you agree with me: that crazy psycho behavior TOO would be "god"? ALL of it! The many manifestations of infinitely creative energy -- it doesn't need to be selectively defined as a separate identity.

My impression of Inglorious is, naturally, different. I have gained the sense that he recognises that y'all's minds just cannot grasp certain basic, elemental, and really rather simple, notions. Thus the 2 x 4 ...
__________________________

Vaishnavism- a major religious current - has an interesting way to conceive of both God and God's creation. (Vaishnavism refers to the religions of the worship of Vishnu).

The Supreme Lord is completely distinct from the creation, is a person of inconceivable potency and reality. This 'person' is the author of this world, and all worlds. In this religious philosophy, the Supreme Lord, according to his own will, design and desire, has set the 'material energy' in motion. It is 'all him' in the sense that nothing cannot be of the Supreme Creator, and yet (they say) he has in a sense divested himself from it.

One could conceive of the 'Big Bang' as the event of creation of our 'world', our cosmos (following the Aristotelian model of the Prime Mover, the First Cause). 'All that' is as a result of the Supreme Lord's power, and it all unfolds according to the latent design within itself.

But this 'material energy' or the 'material manifestation', as such, is independent. The material energy, in which we find ourselves, is understood as his 'exterior energy' and is considered 'marginal energy' in comparison to 'God's being' which is his 'internal energy'. There is an eternal interplay between god's internal and external energy and our life and consciousness is played out in that conflict.

A definitely dualistic vision, it can augment the polarity latent in primitive Occidental metaphysics. The heaviest and densest material energy is leaden and represents a gravitational pull which, in Vaishnava terms, is our longing and desire for certain forms of materialistic pleasure. We are 'tricked' through nescience to seek the most obvious, and the most tangible, pleasures and to forego the higher pleasures. 'Outside' of this dense and also fatal aspect of materialism is the 'spiritual energy' which can only be achieved through a form of work or sacrifice. One locates it conceptually, intuitively, any by suggestion, on the inner plane of thought and feeling, and one makes a choice to come under its influence and to respond to 'it'.

The metaphor of what is 'outside' and 'beyond' is, as you well know, the transcendental sound of Krishna's flute: it is music, harmony, the essence of the soul, the origin and the end of all, the road home (as they say). Hearing it, responding to it, a road opens to follow it.

It is essentially non-material or extra-material. And this becomes a way to define divinity as supernatural: above and beyond the physical manifestation. Much better developed than in classical or Christian philosophy, the philosophy of Vaishnavism opens an avenue to understanding Medieval scholasticism and the Aristotelian definitions of 'the Good'.

The object of consciousness, the object of life, is to ally one's consciousness with the superior 'spiritual energy' of God. This choice, or definition, or focus, allows for the creation of forms of culture that are not achievable solely through a pure materialistic model. In this, Idealism - having an ideal outside of the immediate and contingent material platform- allows for a whole inner, conceptual, imaginative world to open and to take shape in man's consciousness. It is all about the subtlety of consciousness - inexplicable, independent of materialism, potentially independent - and also about the consciousness of man's imagination. 'Imagination' means something different here, something unique and hard to express.

So, in this view, God is the author (obviously) of everything that exists and can exist. But there are differing levels of intensity of presence (as it might be described). The 'material manifestation' is what impinges on our senses and awareness, but the 'spiritual manifestation' is like a frequency easily drowned-out or overpowered by the material energy. One moves in one's own inner realm of mind, feeling and consciousness (awareness) toward a dimension of realisation only attainable on that inner level.

Religion, at its best, is thus a 'science' of consciousness and special forms of progress.

OK Sthitapragya: On your mark, get set, rip it to shreds ...

uwot wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Dimwit.

Out of interest, Inglorious, why do you think sthitapragya's question is dim-witted?

First of all, there's the qualifier, i.e., "You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense." It automatically shuts down any further discussion. That qualifier makes the deeper truth inaccessible. It's as though sthitapragya's mode of thought is digital (comprised of discrete bits and pieces) whereas the deeper truth is approachable only by analogue: e.g., in a certain sense, Anakin Skywalker died when he became Darth Vader.

Secondly, I already explained in another thread: "Infinite Being (perfect symmetry) implies unity and immutability, but it does not imply immobility nor does it exclude the possibility of self-differentiation and self-limitation. In fact, to deny the possibility of God's volitional self-differentiation and self-limitation [broken symmetry] amounts to a denial of the very concept of God's volitional absoluteness."

What I said there makes the question asked here dimwitted.

I gotta admit, Gustav. You are much more the poet than I am.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:My impression of Inglorious is, naturally, different. I have gained the sense that he recognises that y'all's minds just cannot grasp certain basic, elemental, and really rather simple, notions. Thus the 2 x 4 ...
__________________________

Vaishnavism- a major religious current - has an interesting way to conceive of both God and God's creation. (Vaishnavism refers to the religions of the worship of Vishnu).

The Supreme Lord is completely distinct from the creation, is a person of inconceivable potency and reality. This 'person' is the author of this world, and all worlds. In this religious philosophy, the Supreme Lord, according to his own will, design and desire, has set the 'material energy' in motion. It is 'all him' in the sense that nothing cannot be of the Supreme Creator, and yet (they say) he has in a sense divested himself from it.

And this is where my argument comes in. God might have 'divested himself from it' (which he has not in reality which brings in maya), but from the point of view of the believer who understands the concept of consciousness, the reality is that everything is God. The illusion is what we see, comprised of everything, dimwits and enlightened ones included. The fact is, most of you "believers" simply do no understand this which is why most believers are so quick to discriminate and abuse. They do not understand that God is everything, and everywhere.

Oh, and the Supreme Lord is not completely distinct from his creation. It is maya that creates that illusion. The Supreme Lord is, as Inglorious say, self differentiated. Not distinct.

Also, you always gripe about how atheists attack and abuse immediately something is written. How about commenting on the same behaviour from your theist friend? Or is that something you will, as usual, ignore?

The Inglorious One wrote:

uwot wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Dimwit.

Out of interest, Inglorious, why do you think sthitapragya's question is dim-witted?

First of all, there's the qualifier, i.e., "You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense." It automatically shuts down any further discussion. That qualifier makes the deeper truth inaccessible. It's as though sthitapragya's mode of thought is digital (comprised of discrete bits and pieces) whereas the deeper truth is approachable only by analogue: e.g., in a certain sense, Anakin Skywalker died when he became Darth Vader.

Secondly, I already explained in another thread: "Infinite Being (perfect symmetry) implies unity and immutability, but it does not imply immobility nor does it exclude the possibility of self-differentiation and self-limitation. In fact, to deny the possibility of God's volitional self-differentiation and self-limitation [broken symmetry] amounts to a denial of the very concept of God's volitional absoluteness."

What I said there makes the question asked here dimwitted.

Self differentiation and self limitation do not make for complete distinction. The omnipotence is absolute. It just means that even though the infinite being might self limit and self differentiate, the reality is that it is all still the infinite being. the infinite being does not differentiate to the point of making a distinct finite being because then the concept of infinity would be broken. Even after self limiting and self differentiating, the form thus created is still a part of the infinite being. It cannot not be so. Think a little more about this. You still do not understand the concept of infinite being, otherwise I assure you, you would not , indeed could not, be so abusive. You just don't see it.

Why else do you think the truly enlightened ones are all non-violent, without exception? Because they all see God everywhere.

In fact, that is the only remnant of my religious days left in me. Once I saw God in everything, I just could not hate anything anymore. Now I don't believe in God, but I still think seeing everyone as equals makes things a lot better for me.

Sometimes theists claim that God is out side of time and space. They obviously have zero knowledge
of physics because that statement is as ridiculous as it is false. As nothing can exist out side of them
The only place where he is actually known to exist is in the imaginations of those who believe in him
He has not been found any where else. Theists also sometimes say you cannot know the mind of God
Which is odd given they seem to know it well enough to be able to say such a thing. It is all nonsense

Lacewing wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: And do you agree with me: that crazy psycho behavior TOO would be "god"? ALL of it! The many manifestations of infinitely creative energy -- it doesn't need to be selectively defined as a separate identity.

It cannot be selectively defined as a separate entity. Like I said before the omnipotence is absolute. The self limitation and self differentiation still means that what is contained within the differentiated form is comprised of the infinite being in totality.

Poornamadah poornamidam poornat poornamudachyate

poornasya poornamaaday poornamevaav shisyate.

That is complete, This is complete, From the completeness comes the completeness

If completeness is taken away from completeness, Only completeness remains

This is a loose translation, but it captures the concept of the infinite being.

The Inglorious One wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I think theists need to clarify this once and for all. Either God is everywhere or he is not. Choose one. And stick by it. You cannot say that God is everywhere "in a certain sense". Because that implies that God is NOT everywhere in other senses. If God is everywhere, then He is in every atom or my body. That would make me a part of God.

If, however, it does not make me a part of God, then you need to explain why it does not make me a part of God.

You also then need to explain why God sends a part of himself to heaven and other parts of himself to hell. You also need to explain why certain parts of God commit evil and other parts do not. You also need to explain why God only saves certain parts of himself and does not save other parts of himself.

Why does God want parts of himself to worship him? If God is everywhere which Gods are the false Gods and how are they false Gods if God is everywhere? Is God not there in ANY SENSE in those false Gods? If so, does that mean God is not everywhere in a certain sense? Does is mean that there are places where there is no God in any sense whatsoever?

Why does God perform miracles on parts of himself while excluding vast parts of himself from such miracles?

Why do parts of God believe in God and other parts of God not believe in Him?

If God is in every atom of me, what does the soul do? Is that an extra God in me somewhere?

But basically, is there God everywhere or is he not? If not, in what sense is he NOT everywhere?

Dimwit.

Hehehe. I love it when theists show their true colours.

sthitapragya wrote:

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:My impression of Inglorious is, naturally, different. I have gained the sense that he recognises that y'all's minds just cannot grasp certain basic, elemental, and really rather simple, notions. Thus the 2 x 4 ...
__________________________

Vaishnavism- a major religious current - has an interesting way to conceive of both God and God's creation. (Vaishnavism refers to the religions of the worship of Vishnu).

The Supreme Lord is completely distinct from the creation, is a person of inconceivable potency and reality. This 'person' is the author of this world, and all worlds. In this religious philosophy, the Supreme Lord, according to his own will, design and desire, has set the 'material energy' in motion. It is 'all him' in the sense that nothing cannot be of the Supreme Creator, and yet (they say) he has in a sense divested himself from it.

And this is where my argument comes in. God might have 'divested himself from it' (which he has not in reality which brings in maya), but from the point of view of the believer who understands the concept of consciousness, the reality is that everything is God. The illusion is what we see, comprised of everything, dimwits and enlightened ones included. The fact is, most of you "believers" simply do no understand this which is why most believers are so quick to discriminate and abuse. They do not understand that God is everything, and everywhere.

Oh, and the Supreme Lord is not completely distinct from his creation. It is maya that creates that illusion. The Supreme Lord is, as Inglorious say, self differentiated. Not distinct.

Aham Bramhāsmi meaning I am Brahman (the Infinite Being). It is only when the ego dies that this awareness of the self can come.

Also, you always gripe about how atheists attack and abuse immediately something is written. How about commenting on the same behaviour from your theist friend? Or is that something you will, as usual, ignore?