How is God manifest? (theists only)

[Kilyke]

I have two questions for this thread:

Does God exist physically but with a different "wavelength" that we can't see, like ultraviolet? How is god "real"?

...was not answered in my original post...
however,

If God exists physically, how is He omnipresent? Does he use "magic" or "technology" to do so? If God is not omnipresent, how does he interact with all of his millions upon millions of believers?

received this response:

I like to think of it like this: If I were to cut off my hand, I could wrap it up and it would probably be fine. If I were to cut off all of the air surrounding me, or my food supply, or the earth beneath me. I would be dead or floating in space. And yet which do we consider more 'us' our hand or the air/food/earth?


I don't really get what kurdt is saying here. Of course our hand is more a part of my identity, not because it is essential to my survival, but because it is something I can mentally/physically directly control the movement of (of course there are some instances where reflex takes over, but that's moot).

So... what does that mean in terms of God? I'm not sure.

My personal opinion on the matter... (some credit to frater_fll) ...is that God is more of an abstract concept than an actual entity... but my question was mainly aimed at theists who believe in an intervening sort of god rather than the "oneness" conceptual-type god.

[ArmsMerchant]

God is pure spirit. We were created in the image and likeness of God in order that God could experience the physical through us. At the Highest Leve--aka the seventh level of consciousness; enlightenment; going to heaven--, there is no difference between you and God.

Jesus was alluding to this when he said "All these things I have done, ye shall do also--all these and more."

[postdiluvium]

Does God exist physically but with a different "wavelength" that we can't see, like ultraviolet? How is god "real"?


I don't believe God exists physically. If God created Physics and this physical plane we live in, then He would be something outside of it. It would be like any of us drawing on a piece of paper. Whatever is drawn on the paper exists there. For that drawing, the paper is it's world. There would be no way we could actually manifest ourselves onto the paper.

God isn't "real". God just "is". You and I are "real".

[Dream of the iris]

God isn't "real". God just "is". You and I are "real".
Reply With Quote

No, we're programs. Even god is a program.

[postdiluvium]

No, we're programs. Even god is a program.

Well can someone debug this infinite loop we are stuck in? We all seem to keep asking the same questions and having the same problems over and over again. Possibly God forgot to increment the counter... I don't know. But if this program keeps running the way it is, the stack is going to run out of memory and the whole system is going to crash.

[ergoat]

I don't believe God exists physically. If God created Physics and this physical plane we live in, then He would be something outside of it. It would be like any of us drawing on a piece of paper. Whatever is drawn on the paper exists there. For that drawing, the paper is it's world. There would be no way we could actually manifest ourselves onto the paper.

God isn't "real". God just "is". You and I are "real".
I'm not sure drawing on paper and creating a universe with physical laws are completely analogous. You could equally compare it to creating a video game, something you have a more direct level of control over.

[Dream of the iris]

Well can someone debug this infinite loop we are stuck in? We all seem to keep asking the same questions and having the same problems over and over again. Possibly God forgot to increment the counter... I don't know. But if this program keeps running the way it is, the stack is going to run out of memory and the whole system is going to crash.

We are lazy. That's part of the programming. We all want something outside ourselves and we all want someone else to do it for us. You want your messiah? YOU are the messiah. You know, Jesus never admitted he was the messiah? WE said he was because how could anyone possibly do the things he did? How can anyone love anyone so much? Only special people can do those things. What a world! :rolleyes: From an outside perspective, it's a wonder how we're capable of functioning in this prison.



And what about Buddha?


"Nobody listened to the Buddha. That's why we have Buddhism"

;)

ISM is our problem and all this arguing and pondering and wondering on this forum is useless. You'll never get anywhere. Maybe someone might say something and start a domino affect and get you to start looking within, but most of it is just useless arguing and bickering. These stem from programs. If you find yourself getting offended by anything you are still programed.

[postdiluvium]

I'm not sure drawing on paper and creating a universe with physical laws are completely analogous. You could equally compare it to creating a video game, something you have a more direct level of control over.

I guess that is where we differ. I am more of a Deist. Although, God created Physics and the physical universe, I only believe he created the Laws that govern this universe and left the universe on its own to evolve and prosper. I don't believe in divine intervention and all of that stuff.

[ergoat]

I guess that is where we differ. I am more of a Deist. Although, God created Physics and the physical universe, I only believe he created the Laws that govern this universe and left the universe on its own to evolve and prosper. I don't believe in divine intervention and all of that stuff.
I'm not saying I believe in it, just that argument by analogy usually has some problems.

[Zay]

I guess that is where we differ. I am more of a Deist. Although, God created Physics and the physical universe, I only believe he created the Laws that govern this universe and left the universe on its own to evolve and prosper. I don't believe in divine intervention and all of that stuff.

Then I'm sure you'll find this interesting:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

[Built To Last]

I don't really get what kurdt is saying here. Of course our hand is more a part of my identity, not because it is essential to my survival, but because it is something I can mentally/physically directly control the movement of (of course there are some instances where reflex takes over, but that's moot).

So... what does that mean in terms of God? I'm not sure.


Hm, yeah I'm unsure what point I was trying to make either. Oh well, I'll try and be more coherent next time.

[Death_Merchant]

If you truly want to understand, substitute "God created", with "God is".

[Kilyke]

God is pure spirit. We were created in the image and likeness of God in order that God could experience the physical through us.

Is saying that does does not exist physically.
Goes further... but if God isn't a physical entity, in what capacity does it act?
In other words, what is a spirit, exactly?

If God created Physics and this physical plane we live in, then He would be something outside of it.
It would be like any of us drawing on a piece of paper. Whatever is drawn on the paper exists there.
For that drawing, the paper is it's world.
There would be no way we could actually manifest ourselves onto the paper.


Same question. Such a being that could "create" physics, would be outside our domain of sense and cognition. So in what manner would such a being be creating?

In the case of the graphite being rubbed onto the paper, the paper can only sense the results of our actions, not our existence itself. My question is, how can we sense God's existence?

If we cannot answer these questions, we cannot know how God is manifest.

God isn't "real". God just "is". You and I are "real".

Okay, so "being" isn't even the right word.

Let me put it this way: everything I believe in is, by my definition, "real." This includes concepts such as friendship and the laws of physics. Maybe we're suffering from a lacking of agreement upon what is defined as "real."

No, we're programs. Even god is a program.

Uh, what?! Just because I know what a computer program is doesn't mean you can just not explain your analogy and have me understand. Being vague does not equal being smart (although the two aren't mutually exclusive).

Remember: the meaning of a communication is the response it gets.

Always,
Kilyke

[postdiluvium]

Same question. Such a being that could "create" physics, would be outside our domain of sense and cognition. So in what manner would such a being be creating?

In the case of the graphite being rubbed onto the paper, the paper can only sense the results of our actions, not our existence itself. My question is, how can we sense God's existence?

If we cannot answer these questions, we cannot know how God is manifest.

Okay, so "being" isn't even the right word.

Let me put it this way: everything I believe in is, by my definition, "real." This includes concepts such as friendship and the laws of physics. Maybe we're suffering from a lacking of agreement upon what is defined as "real."


I guess the best way for me to articulate what my belief is on this subject is to just come out and say it.

God isn't necessarily anything we could consider God to be. God, in my definition, is just something that created a set of physical laws at a certain instance, which then formed a universe and the life we now experience. God could possibly be just two forms of energy that bumped into each other at random and "bang" a universe starts forming on whatever physical attributes were created from them bumping into each other.

This plane of existence that God lives in contains our plane of existence. To God's world we are just "worms". "Worms" as in we are instances of ourselves at every point in time.

Say this is our 3 dimensional life at a certain point of time.

||

So a whole life time would look like that multiplied by some quantum number.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

So it forms a certain type of "worm". In God's world every instance of time can be seen by just looking at whatever part of that "worm". If one were to say God were an "all seeing, all knowing being", they would be correct if they were talking about being able to see and know everything that may occur in any individual's life.

The worm stops at the point of death. At that point we transition from our larval phase into the next stage of our actual life cycles. Kind of like a caterpillar to a butterfly. Instead of instances, our lives continue into that universe where we live there as we live now in this universe. Mormons say they become God-types when they die. Various religions believe that they will join God in "heaven" when they die. Many who believe in the afterlife believe that those that have died can look into our lives and watch us or even intervene in our lives. All of this is possible under my belief. But my belief isn't really definite in any way. I like to keep it vague at a certain point because, really, none of us really know. And as written by Moses on Mt Sinai, anyone claiming they do would be blasphemy. Which is why he said not to create images of God or, just not assume we know God's ways.

[Dream of the iris]

Just because I know what a computer program is doesn't mean you can just not explain your analogy and have me understand. Being vague does not equal being smart (although the two aren't mutually exclusive).

Remember: the meaning of a communication is the response it gets.

I see your location suits you. :p

We are programs arguing about programs "Making models of ourselves making models.." (isms, ideolgies, beliefs, "metaphysical" mumbo jumbo, pseudo-intellectual bullshit, you name it. It's all a program and we the programmers (or the ones being used by the program...I'm confusing myself here :D ) Your a program. You have a set reaction to certain situations, a programmed way of life, an avatar you call you and all the little problems and such that make up this avatar you call yourself. If you find yourself getting even more confused.. I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it any more clear then that.

I'm starting to think that perhaps that person who made the "free will is an illusion" topic might have been on to something.... For how can one have "free will" when one isn't free to begin with?



Interesting, though, I remember once seeing a nature show and at the very end, there were these lines, "The way nature programmed them to be". These very lines should invoke deep questions and hopefully lead to some interesting answers.

[ergoat]

I'm starting to think that perhaps that person who made the "free will is an illusion" topic might have been on to something.... For how can one have "free will" when one isn't free to begin with?


Free will and lack of physical freedom are not incompatible. You could be a prisoner of determinism but still will for something else to happen. I'm not sure if that's the way that free will is usually intended or if it's more directed towards being able to actualise that will, but from where I stand I can't see how you would argue that.

Still, that doesn't show that we actually have free will, which is a hard thing to prove.

On the programming thing, I've had similar thoughts, only aimed at a different spot. For example, it certainly seems implausible to deny that there is biological programming (e.g. language acquisition, adolescence) and that seems like an indication that there are factors of our lives not subject to will. It also seems pretty clear that social values are programmed, not by biology but by the external influences that come with living in a community.

It certainly might be the case that everything is built right in a programmed from the start, but I think you might've been closer when you said that we are the programmers. Closer still when you said the ones being used by the program. Actually I think we're both, or at least have the potential to be. Since our values are largely programmed by external influences (e.g. storytelling, parables, any number of Commandments) and much of the storytelling and example-setting people see as they're growing up and as adults is through the media.

<Runs typical media brainwashing argument>

In contrast, I think you can program yourself as well, and even others if you have a big enough peer group.

But I think I'm getting away from the point.

This is my programming/god story.

I mean first of all it seems fairly convincing to me that the human race is driven towards replication, simulation, and entertainment. We breed, we program computers to simulate our lives and lives with different conditions to our own, and we do this for entertainment purposes. Not only that, but a lot of humans enjoy watching TV or playing video games to the point where it consumes their every waking non-working hour.

Now if we had the skills for artificial intelligence to be as convincing as our own (potentially artificial) intelligence, then we could synthesise a virtual world where these intelligencies could 'exist.' A world that would seem real to them in every way, a world we could edit at our choosing, or an experiment where we can see how subtle influences effect these beings, which they could reasonably be called.

So we've created a universe, maybe more than one. Maybe it'll get to the stage where we've created millions of universes, and all you have to do to make another one is swing on down to K-Mart and buy another uni-cartidge for your computer. Depending on how you program your A.I, they might just get smart enough to program their own universes, and have them do the same.

My point is it would be pretty arrogant to assume that we're the first in this series, that we set off the chain of virtual worlds. It's a possibility, for sure, and there's no real basis for this theory except some empirical observations and extrapolation of these observations, it might well be that this universe does not end up propagating any others, but that doesn't prove a thing. That's how I think of programming and god together, it really doesn't require god, but that seems to be a concept that fits with it, so long as by god you mean 'creator' or something similar.

[Dream of the iris]

Still, that doesn't show that we actually have free will, which is a hard thing to prove.

To me, free will comes when one is actually aware enough to see the choices that will affect his life and particular timeline. Most people aren't aware enough to see this (look around if you want proof). So, to me, free will does exist. However, it requires awareness to be able to utilize it. Otherwise, you're just a program going along on a programmed path.


Now if we had the skills for artificial intelligence to be as convincing as our own (potentially artificial) intelligence, then we could synthesise a virtual world where these intelligencies could 'exist.' A world that would seem real to them in every way, a world we could edit at our choosing, or an experiment where we can see how subtle influences effect these beings, which they could reasonably be called.


Interesting.. You should get into some conspriacy theories on ETs and our "gods". :p

[ergoat]

To me, free will comes when one is actually aware enough to see the choices that will affect his life and particular timeline. Most people aren't aware enough to see this (look around if you want proof). So, to me, free will does exist. However, it requires awareness to be able to utilize it. Otherwise, you're just a program going along on a programmed path.


You know that sounds a bit like hard determinism. Seems like you're saying that you don't have the capacity to exercise free will unless you're aware of the effects of your actions. That sounds deterministic, but you include the condition that if there is awareness then there is free will, which creates a problem for that parallel.

Then it again, it seems plausible to argue that if you are aware of choices and their repercussions then you're still following a program, it's just the "this is what I believe to be best" program, and that seems to be compatible with determinism. The only reason I bring it up is because it seems like you're saying "free will does exist" but also asserting that you can never choose anything other than what you actually choose.

[pengd0t]

I think this sort of discussion is always difficult to understand because most of the time someone uses the word "god," even they don't know what they mean.

Work out a workable definition of god and it will become a lot clearer for you.

[ArmsMerchant]

I think this sort of discussion is always difficult to understand because most of the time someone uses the word "god," even they don't know what they mean.

Work out a workable definition of god and it will become a lot clearer for you.

Good point. I tried to address that very issue in the "seven faces of God' thread.

[-Fuck-]

You want to see God? You want to see reality.

You want to see reality? You need to stop dreams.

You want to stop dreams? You need to stop the mind.

You want to stop the mind? You need to pay attention to the breath.

Can't pay attention to the breath? Use an outer sound;rhythm;song. Time your breath, like you're dancing with life's energy

1 hour aint enough? Try 8 hours.

One night not enough? Try 7 nights.

I bet you can't last one. Some say a life of wandering thoughts is a strong force. Others say those thoughts aren't just accumulated from ONE life

God's real. But you must be in an absolute clear state of mind to observe that. How you get there, out of the many ways, is up to you. I assure you it's real and just one spiritual experience, will make you eternally curious to see more in life.

[Thor2axe]

I'm not sure drawing on paper and creating a universe with physical laws are completely analogous. You could equally compare it to creating a video game, something you have a more direct level of control over.

Actually, I think the paper is more analogous than a video game. A piece of paper is very contained, and obvious. Anything that is on it, is on it. And everything that is not, is not.
I suppose the same is true for a video game. But it is less ideosyncratic. A higher being is completely seperate from the world he has founded, unlike the player in a game.

[Phinehas]

God is manifest as Jesus Christ.

[ergoat]

Actually, I think the paper is more analogous than a video game. A piece of paper is very contained, and obvious. Anything that is on it, is on it. And everything that is not, is not.
I suppose the same is true for a video game. But it is less ideosyncratic. A higher being is completely seperate from the world he has founded, unlike the player in a game.
I wasn't saying God is a player in the game, more like a coder, a creator. A drawing on a page is two dimensional, at least a video game has some rules. Your drawing doesn't have rules. The universe has rules, seems to have laws, things that happen over and over again. Well, your drawing on a page is completely static. The game can move, develop, there's room to explore, to create AI in the game. The universe isn't static, things don't stay the same, at least on a basic level, people interact, intelligences, created intelligences.

Funny though, how a piece of paper is a more realistic analogy seeing as how it's barely analogous at all.

As far as a higher being being completely seperate from the world he creates, well I'd like to see some proof, and I really don't think you can prove that.

[-Fuck-]

God is manifest as Jesus Christ.

It'd be nice to think "God" was only "manifest" in one person, at one time. It'd be nice because life would be so easy thinking such commonly accepted things, at least nice for the society, nice for the mask.

All your metaphysical experiences could be explained away by the psychiatrist as you visit them at 9, just before the church sermon at 10. You can drink the holy water at 11 and go home hoping the bad sinners only one day get to reach your great level of kissing Jesus' ass so they might be saved from... not kissing Jesus' ass.

I'm more than certain that anyone who spouts "Jesus is the only holy man who ever lived and by constantly thinking about him I get to heaven" has actually never had a higher level of perception, has probably never taken enough hallucinogens and hasn't gone deeper into themselves or really contemplated other things than "Jesus is LORD STFULOL".

It would be hard to have a real life-altering experience and then pretend again, in fact I'm sure it could drive some people mad. Having your whole belief system, the whole WORLD'S belief system shitted on by the greater universe because you got lucky enough to actually get beyond yourself. Hey maybe that's what society needs, a fresh set of eyes, a splash of water on the face in the middle of the night while fast asleep. Unfortunately "God" only appears when you choose to look unblinkingly, and I do mean that literally.

And to add: Im not saying Jesus didn't have a godly experience. I'm just sure he's not the only one who has, and this is where the big ugly negative Christian flaw is: constantly thinking you are less than another, doesn't help ANYONE.

[ArmsMerchant]

God is manifest as Jesus Christ.

And the Buddha, and john Law, and Eckhart, and my wife and so on and so forth. . . . . .

[TheSexyBeast821]

God is manifest as the universe and everything it contains, including you.

[0omnidirectional]

I have two questions for this thread:

Does God exist physically but with a different "wavelength" that we can't see, like ultraviolet? How is god "real"?

God is the wave, and the length. Real, that is just an idea. God is all ideas, real, fiction, elephant, language. Energy matter information, all entwined, it goes further.