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 19 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 16 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.

[Nemra]

8 hours ago, Hojo said:

Calling it God is a programming.

But won't we eventually need a term encompassing the infinitude of various things?

Edited 8 hours ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

7 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

God hallucinates all of experience, human and non human.

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

That is the biggest mindfuck that I cannot handle at the moment.

Edited 8 hours ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

12 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

One is the loneliest number.

Two is twice as lonely. 😁

[Inliytened1]

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."  --Lao Tzu

Edited 8 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."  --Lao Tzu

Because of its infinitude, some people think understanding it is pointless, and some think that's the reason why understanding it is worth it.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Because of its infinitude, some people think understanding it is pointless, and some think that's the reason why understanding it is worth it.

How can you fully understand what it's like to be a butterfly?  

Edited 7 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Willy Phallicus]

13 hours ago, Nemra said:

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.

Everything that has a beginning has an end.

Some die all the way dead and some go *On.

[Nemra]

17 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

How can you fully understand what it's like to be a butterfly?

I understand that I'm limited by my experience.

I can't completely understand something that I'm not. So, if you become a butterfly someday, come back and tell us what you understood.

However, I don't think that butterflies are capable of understanding stuff.

Aren't you God? If so, then what's stopping you from understanding it?

I don't see any reason not to understand God, even if I'm limited to my experience.

Edited 7 hours ago by Nemra

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I understand that I'm limited by my experience.

I can't completely understand something that I'm not. So, if you become a butterfly someday, come back and tell us what you understood.

However, I don't think that butterflies are capable of understanding stuff.

In any case, I don't see any reason not to understand God, even if I'm limited to my experience.

Aren't you God?

I'm not suggesting you can't understand Infinity.  But one must become Infinite (Infinite Consciousness).  The finite cannot grasp the Infinite, rather it must become the Infinite. 

[Nemra]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I'm not suggesting you can't understand Infinity.  But one must become Infinite (Infinite Consciousness).  The finite cannot grasp the Infinite, rather it must become the Infinite. 

If you claim that you are God, then by your logic you should be able to understand it, even if it takes infinite time for you.

I didn't say that you would completely understand it. If you did, then God wouldn't be infinite in the first place.

What do you think is the potential of psychedelics?

Edited 7 hours ago by Nemra

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, Nemra said:

If you claim that you are God, then by your logic you should be able to understand it, even if it takes infinite time for you.

I didn't say that you would completely understand it. If you did, then God wouldn't be infinite in the first place.

What do you think is the potential of psychedelics?

Who else could understand it? And something Infinite indicates that nothing is impossible.  Its just that now you are in a finite state of consciousness.   I think the potential of psychedelics in shifting Consciousness is marvelous.   Meditation is also a great tool.  But I think one has to be ready for God to reveal itself.  Otherwise these tools will not have any effect.  A hammer is useless for someone with no hands.

[Nemra]

30 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Its just that now you are in a finite state of consciousness. 

I agree. But there must be infinite states.

Even in your finite state, infinity is a necessity; otherwise you wouldn't have your experience.

So, even in your finite state, you can understand why your experience is finite in some sense, can't you?

I'm not trying to say nonsense such as you're already awake or whatever.

30 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

But I think one has to be ready for God to reveal itself.

I agree.

Honestly, it can definitely be very difficult stuff to stomach. The seriousness of psychedelics are unmatched.

Edited 6 hours ago by Nemra