Philosophy Now Forum

Theists typically seem to have definite ideas about what is not of God as they argue about what ultimately IS and what ultimately SHOULD be. Personally, I think such arguments are heavily intoxicated with ones own limited and self-serving interpretations and judgments. So I'm wondering if this simple question "What is NOT of God" can be answered by theists? Other ways of viewing it could be: What are the boundaries of God? What is separate from God?

What is the theist perspective and explanation, since their arguments clearly seem to be dependent and based upon that which is, and that which is not, of God?

As always... non-theists are welcome to chime in.

Lacewing wrote: As always... non-theists are welcome to chime in.

I can't think of anything to say on the subject so I just popped in to say hello.

Harbal wrote:

Lacewing wrote: As always... non-theists are welcome to chime in.

I can't think of anything to say on the subject so I just popped in to say hello.

Excellent!

And a cheery hello to you too!

Lacewing, God is absent from the World so it is safe to assume that whatever you experience in the World is not God

"How can we be so willfully blind as to look for causes in nature when nature herself is an effect” ~ Maistre

The cause is within the Source while the effect is nature's lawful mechanical response

Nick_A wrote:Lacewing, God is absent from the World so it is safe to assume that whatever you experience in the World is not God

So, you're saying that nothing of the world is god, correct? Sort of like, god sneezed... and we are the effect. Right? So do you believe that there are ultimately all kinds of separations, and that all is NOT ultimately one (and connected)?

Lacewing wrote:

So do you believe that there are ultimately all kinds of separations, and that all is NOT ultimately one (and connected)?

There are all kinds of lawful separations. Would you agree that fractions can be lawful separtaions of ONE. ONE IS. Two halves exist and are dependent on the ONE of which they are a fraction of, four quarters exist and so on. Each fraction is a lawful relationship of the whole and its existence is both within and an attribute of ONE.

Nick_A wrote:

Lacewing wrote:So do you believe that there are ultimately all kinds of separations, and that all is NOT ultimately one (and connected)?

There are all kinds of lawful separations. Would you agree that fractions can be lawful separations of ONE. ONE IS. Two halves exist and are dependent on the ONE of which they are a fraction of, four quarters exist and so on. Each fraction is a lawful relationship of the whole and its existence is both within and an attribute of ONE.

Okay... yes, I can see that... but despite all the fractions we can come up with, is there not ultimately connection and ultimately oneness... even if we are intoxicated within our little fractions? Or, do you believe there are complete disconnections and separations, and that this is how (as you say) "god is absent from the world"? What would be the reasoning and point for this being the case when everything else we see is intertwined?

Do you say this because you think the world is bad, and you want to completely separate god from the badness?

Lacewing wrote: Okay... yes, I can see that... but despite all the fractions we can come up with, is there not ultimately connection and ultimately oneness... even if we are intoxicated within our little fractions? Or, do you believe there are complete disconnections and separations, and that this is how (as you say) "god is absent from the world"? What would be the reasoning and point for this being the case when everything else we see is intertwined?

I believe the universe is a giant 8 tone octave consisting of levels of reality based on Pythagoras” law of octaves. It sustains itself through two basic processes: “involution” or the flow of forces into creation, and “evolution” or the return flow of forces back to the source There is a lawful vibratory relationship between levels or the tones of the octave. Man on earth exists at a particular level of reality within the octave. As levels descend each level becomes more material and with less spirit. Earth is a part of a level of reality too material and too distant from the Source to consciously affect it. The earth and organic life it supports is governed by mechanical laws. However we live in a conscious universe so the essence of representatives of higher consciousness such as Jesus and Buddha intentionally devolved onto the level of the earth for the purpose of awakening man to its conscious potential. Man’s origin is from a higher level but for some reason descended onto our level of consciousness with the potential to evolve towards its source. This is a very rough description and obviously far more involved but the point is that Man can only evolve so far in the universe and remain the essence of man

Do you say this because you think the world is bad, and you want to completely separate god from the badness?

As you wrote, everything is connected. The earth is a living machine with connected parts serving a universal purpose. How can a machine be bad? The machine called earth and life it supports is serving its purpose. However Man is unique because Man has the potential for conscious evolution or evolving out of the prison of animal life on earth. Man on earth is an animal with the potential to evolve into a conscious being and become a responsible being serving a conscious purpose greater than creatures of reaction representing mechanical life on earth.

Nick_A wrote:I believe the universe is a giant 8 tone octave consisting of levels of reality based on Pythagoras” law of octaves. It sustains itself through two basic processes: “involution” or the flow of forces into creation, and “evolution” or the return flow of forces back to the source There is a lawful vibratory relationship between levels or the tones of the octave. Man on earth exists at a particular level of reality within the octave. As levels descend each level becomes more material and with less spirit. Earth is a part of a level of reality too material and too distant from the Source to consciously affect it. The earth and organic life it supports is governed by mechanical laws. However we live in a conscious universe so the essence of representatives of higher consciousness such as Jesus and Buddha intentionally devolved onto the level of the earth for the purpose of awakening man to its conscious potential. Man’s origin is from a higher level but for some reason descended onto our level of consciousness with the potential to evolve towards its source. This is a very rough description and obviously far more involved but the point is that Man can only evolve so far in the universe and remain the essence of man.

Thanks for your response.

That's an interesting set of ideas.

Based on your belief system, how "serious" is this earth level? Isn't it simply one potential within the octave? And is that not natural? What would be the need for fixing it? Why do we think it's wrong? Why do we convince ourselves (while we're on this supposedly devolved level) that we have to do something to evolve ourselves back to source?

Lacewing wrote:Do you say this because you think the world is bad, and you want to completely separate god from the badness?

Nick_A wrote:As you wrote, everything is connected. The earth is a living machine with connected parts serving a universal purpose. How can a machine be bad?

I was asking you what you thought. The things you say seem to indicate that you think the world is bad. Do you or not?

Lacewing wrote Based on your belief system, how "serious" is this earth level? Isn't it simply one potential within the octave? And is that not natural? What would be the need for fixing it? Why do we think it's wrong? Why do we convince ourselves (while we're on this supposedly devolved level) that we have to do something to evolve ourselves back to source?

All steps on a ladder or a musical octave are necessary. Without all steps, the ladder or the octave cannot serve its purpose. As I understand it the level of earth throughout our great universe serves as the point connecting mechanical life below with conscious life above. The level of earth has the purpose of making “As above, so below” possible

The whole idea of the Ways or the teachings initiating with a conscious source is to provide a means for man to remember its purpose. All the horrors we see in the world are due simply because we have forgotten our human purpose. It isn’t the earth that needs fixing but our species that has lost its way. Plato referred to it as anamnesis or remembering what has been forgotten. A person can say why bother? Once a person remembers. then the question vanishes. the reason to bother becomes obvious

I was asking you what you thought. The things you say seem to indicate that you think the world is bad. Do you or not?

The planet earth is good. You are probably referring to my description as the World as described in the Bible. Humanity as a whole is in a bad situation from living in spiritual darkness. Living in the darkness of the World is only felt as bad by those not content with it and seek a way out. These people are in a bad situation. Those who have already become free of its psychological dominance and those who couldn’t care less are good in relation to their goals as opposed to the human condition as a whole being objectively bad for human conscious evolution.

Individuals in a bad situation as it concerns human conscious potential are those who find themselves psychologically powerless in the World and unable to deal with it even though they have experienced their potential.

Nick_A wrote:All steps on a ladder or a musical octave are necessary. Without all steps, the ladder or the octave cannot serve its purpose.

Makes sense.

Nick_A wrote:As I understand it the level of earth throughout our great universe serves as the point connecting mechanical life below with conscious life above. The level of earth has the purpose of making “As above, so below” possible.

How can below be as above? It is below exactly because it is not above. It's a different state. Sure, we can become more conscious, but we are still in these troublesome and limited human containers. It doesn't make sense that we are trying to be god-like. We are HERE. This is what this life IS. If we don't embrace it, what else do we think we'll "get"?

Nick_A wrote:The whole idea of the Ways or the teachings initiating with a conscious source is to provide a means for man to remember its purpose.

And what is the purpose? To move beyond? We just got here! And we won't be here for long.

Nick_A wrote:It isn’t the earth that needs fixing but our species that has lost its way.

Where are we supposed to be going? Is there one destination we should all be focused on? That doesn't sound very creative or fun or realistic.

Nick_A wrote:Plato referred to it as anamnesis or remembering what has been forgotten.

Sure... there is value in that... just as there is value in seeing broader perspectives. It may be a different unfolding and dance for different people; and it may not be a specific task or path or timeline or urgency, etc. We're making stuff up... instead of embracing what is. Instead of saying, "Oh look how wonderous all of this is, what can I learn to see and create while I'm here", we say "This is not right... this needs to be something else."

Nick_A wrote:A person can say why bother? Once a person remembers. then the question vanishes. the reason to bother becomes obvious

What I have seen "behind the curtain" has shown me that there is nothing that NEEDS to be done... rather, there is much to engage in and experience right here, right now... it's all ultimately perfect as it is... and I am fully part of all that is. There is no good and bad beyond what we make up on this stage. There is nowhere to "go". Rather, it's as if vast creation is blasting out of the moment on more levels than we can fathom. We may become aware of some of them, but it doesn't matter one way or the other because there's no separation for us to resolve. We are "here" making up stuff... and that's what it is. So, that's MY "rememberance/sight", and it's different than yours, and I'm sure there are many others for other people. This is why I would say: Nothing is ONE way/truth... and there is no particular destination for all.

Nick_A wrote:Humanity as a whole is in a bad situation from living in spiritual darkness.

Well, it's easy to think that... and it makes a good story. But then more and more stories are built on top of that, and it becomes very convoluted. The "saviors" of our world can be the most deluded. We just keep writing the story to please ourselves. Nothing wrong with that... but it's a story that means nothing beyond all of this. That's my interpretation of what I've seen... and it was a profoundly deep "knowing" as well as a flood of relief. All is in order, even if there appears to be disorder from our perspective. I feel full of love and gratitude for it just as it is -- and I do not feel separate in any way.

Lacewing wrote:Theists typically seem to have definite ideas about what is not of God as they argue about what ultimately IS and what ultimately SHOULD be. Personally, I think such arguments are heavily intoxicated with ones own limited and self-serving interpretations and judgments. So I'm wondering if this simple question "What is NOT of God" can be answered by theists? Other ways of viewing it could be: What are the boundaries of God? What is separate from God?

What is the theist perspective and explanation, since their arguments clearly seem to be dependent and based upon that which is, and that which is not, of God?

As always... non-theists are welcome to chime in.

Lacewing wrote:... and I do not feel separate in any way.

Oh come on. I think not.

You’re obviously unaware that the conceptual divisions into us/them, theists/atheists, etc., that you create and conceptualize into judgement based on the limitations of your understanding, are separations created not only by personal identifications with what each word represents to you, but also the arbitrary and oft-felt attraction and repulsion for each word association.

There’s also the feeling of “rightness” that comes from associating self-concept with what you attach to those four words. There’s also the need to delegitimize what you associate with the other words. Sometimes that need is so strong that you must actually move. That strong need to “set things right” sets into motion a causal chain that results in the phenomenal reality of linking-up and broadcasting not so much the rightness you feel, but rather, broadcasting the wrongness that you perceive in the expressions of others. And the methods of invalidation vary but the root of No provides the juice for that motion.

Walker wrote:

Lacewing wrote:... and I do not feel separate in any way.

You’re obviously unaware that the conceptual divisions into us/them, theists/atheists, etc., that you create and conceptualize into judgement based on the limitations of your understanding, are separations created not only by personal identifications with what each word represents to you, but also the arbitrary and oft-felt attraction and repulsion for each word association.

I was talking about separation from all-that-is, Walker. That's what my response to Nick was about.

OF COURSE there are divisions and separations on this worldly stage. But while going through those motions, I remain aware that ultimately, for me, it's all connected and there are no separations. I am not separated from anything... including a god. I do not believe that there is an ultimate prize or position of rightness. None of it matters. There is no way to "get this wrong". Here, we play and experience and make stuff up... but beyond this, we are safe and connected and one. That's how I see it.

Can you understand how it might be possible to view and participate in this life/earth without confusing it as a full picture or attributing it to some plan or story?

Well, you’ve just explained how a feminist can support Sharia. This should be of interest to Nick_A.

*

I do have some knowledge of the questions you ask. I have a number of pressing affairs and previous engagements, however should you care to discuss before I conceptualize, I’ll contribute the time to your evolution.

Lacewing wrote: How can below be as above? It is below exactly because it is not above. It's a different state. Sure, we can become more conscious, but we are still in these troublesome and limited human containers. It doesn't make sense that we are trying to be god-like. We are HERE. This is what this life IS. If we don't embrace it, what else do we think we'll "get"?

The expression “as above so below” came from the Emerald Tablet of Hermes. You’ve contributed a lot of ideas and raised a lot of worthy questions as far as embracing life, objective human purpose, what we should do, and so on. I think that our disagreements are related to the foundation of our philosophies.

I believe and have verified at least for me that I exist in Plato’s cave. I am a slave to imagination and the preconceptions imagination creates. Embracing life through imagination becomes the states of attachment the Eastern traditions warn us of. The point is that it is impossible for a person asleep in Plato’s cave enchanted by the shadows on the wall to embrace life because they are imagining life. So rather than doing this or that or embracing this or that, my problem is how to awaken from imagination if I have a sincere interest in objective human meaning and purpose?

Most will deny they lack conscious attention and will avoid experiments to verify it so live in imagination. The idea of awakening seems absurd. Why should awakened beings strive to awaken? Yet there is a minority who have experienced the power of imagination and what it denies the awareness of objective human meaning and purpose. They strive to awaken. Plato’s cave dominated by imagination is by definition not of God. Consciousness and imagination are mutually exclusive so when imagination dominates, consciousness is absent.That is why arguing the God question within Plato’s cave seems self defeating. Verifying the God question requires awakening rather than arguing imaginary preconceptions. People prefer to argue so our species as a whole just turns in circles.