On God's Presence

[Nemra]

When I see existence itself as the fundamental truth, then God starts to make total sense, because nothing remains outside of it.

But why specifically God?

Because existence is infinite.

There can't be a limit to what could exist, even if my experience has certain limits. However, the limitations of my experience exist. If existence were limited, there wouldn't be any kind of experience.

Thus, the differentiation of God and I is seen as illusory.

And I start to notice that God must have been ever-present in all of my experience.

God must be experiencing, not the human.

Edited 9 hours ago by Nemra

[Willy Phallicus]

One is the loneliest number.

[cetus]

You are the aperture through which the universe -God, is aware of itself.

[Someone here]

 

3 hours ago, Nemra said:

When I see existence itself as the fundamental truth, then God starts to make total sense, because nothing remains outside of it.

But why specifically God?

Because existence is infinite.

There can't be a limit to what could exist, even if my experience has certain limits. However, the limitations of my experience exist. If existence were limited, there wouldn't be any kind of experience.

Thus, the differentiation of God and I is seen as illusory.

And I start to notice that God must have been ever-present in all of my experience.

God must be experiencing, not the human.

What confuses me about god is god’s substance or what is god in itself . By being infinite and all pervading he (it) must be nothing . that’s the truest and most essential nature of god. It has to be that way . It can’t be anything else because any formed substance would be limited and incomplete and therefore cannot be god . On the other hand when you look at the manifest world or all of creation .. the sun and earth and planets orbiting with consistent motion..the living creatures with consciousness and complex designs (it’s a design . Evolution can’t design a butterfly out of randomness) etc then you conclude that there is a designer or god but I don’t know how could god create when he was in the godhead (nothing ). It should remain nothing forever . The answer I hear is there is no ultimate difference between nothing and something but still there is something incomprehensible about a pure formlessness giving rise to intelligence and design . 

[Hojo]

Incompleteness theorem says that God is the name of the set. There will always be counter sets shooting into existence.

The name of the sets is nothing in the set but contains all sets. 

Its not real but its there.

God is the name of the sets but its not 'its' name.

Calling it God is a programming.

You can call it anything, thats why the hindus make so many Gods because you can make it your God by acknowledging it and giving it an origin and calling it whatever you want.

Edited 6 hours ago by Hojo

[Terell Kirby]

4 hours ago, Nemra said:

God must be experiencing, not the human.

God hallucinates all of experience, human and non human.

Even the distinction between human and non human experience is something God hallucinates.

 

[Nemra]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

By being infinite and all-pervading, he (it) must be nothing. That's the truest and most essential nature of God. It has to be that way.

Do you see that whatever the nature is, must have the property of being infinite?

Infinity becomes a logical necessity.

Don't you think that only nothing being God's nature is limiting God? Why can't God have infinite types of nature?

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

 

What confuses me about god is god’s substance or what is god in itself . By being infinite and all pervading he (it) must be nothing . that’s the truest and most essential nature of god. It has to be that way . It can’t be anything else because any formed substance would be limited and incomplete and therefore cannot be god . On the other hand when you look at the manifest world or all of creation .. the sun and earth and planets orbiting with consistent motion..the living creatures with consciousness and complex designs (it’s a design . Evolution can’t design a butterfly out of randomness) etc then you conclude that there is a designer or god but I don’t know how could god create when he was in the godhead (nothing ). It should remain nothing forever . The answer I hear is there is no ultimate difference between nothing and something but still there is something incomprehensible about a pure formlessness giving rise to intelligence and design . 

There is no creator god who designs what appears; that would be impossible because such a god would be a limited entity separate from its creation. What is called god, or reality, is limitlessness itself; this is equivalent to being.

To be means to appear, an affirmative quality, the fact of being. Reality always is, without origin, since there are no limits. This being manifests itself in constant relative change. From this unlimited relative change, forms arise.