True Concept of God

[divinum1]

The true concept of God is as follow;

God if a three quantitative reality;

Two of which are scalar in character, and one of which is a vector quantity.

The three quantities may be best described as; Numbers, Space, and Light.

 

However each quantity has a multiple variety of different meanings, but all closely related to one another. And here are some examples of their meanings;

Numbers for example may indicate an amount of; mass, matter, energy, molecules, atoms, particles e.t.c.

Space may relate to; a volume, an area, a domain, a sphere, a length, a distance, a diameter, or a radius e.t.c.

Light on the other hand as a vector quantity has some extra ordinary characteristics, but its general meanings are; motion, action, operation, cooperation, speed, velocity, force, power, vigor, might, and its extra ordinary characteristics relate to; life, consciousness, knowledge, reason, intelligence e.t.c.

 

However God is and was in existence from eternity, he therefore hasn't been created, nor can he be uncreated.

He simply is, was, and is for ever to be what he is.

 

For further explanation follow the "First Cause":

[the asinine cretin]

I would think that the origin of contingent being would be wholly transcendent and therefore beyond dimensionality, and indeed any categories of human thought. The way I see things, a description of the divine could be at best apophatic and would not refer directly to divine being in itself. What you describe - as being presumably the structure of divine being - strikes me as implying a metaphysical substrate. In what space is God a vector quantity? Et cetera.

 

I realize you're trying to say that the divine nature is in some sense number, space and light as such, but why say this in terms of a vector quantity? Also, God is basically the categories of Aristotle? Huh? You've completely lost me with your explanation of God as light. Please elaborate.

 

Cheers.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V

[questionposter]

God is just a term used to describe a being beyond comprehension.

[the asinine cretin]

God is just a term used to describe a being beyond comprehension.

To my way of thinking God (in se) cannot be described in terms of being, as the term God refers to the ultimate origin and so-called ground of being. To me, the idea of a scientific concept of God makes little sense as science and religion are predicated upon two quite distinct branches of epistemology. The validity of scientific epistemology is to me practically beyond question; the nature and validity of religious epistemology is something that I do not currently understand but I am open to it. Such a fundamental bifurcation of truth is a problem, in my opinion. Also, the possibility of opening the door to pseudo-science and absurdity is a problem. The thinking of people like Spinoza and Leibnitz is somewhat compelling to me, but there are so many questions. How do we know anything about God at all? What is the role of private religious experience and mysticism? How does this account for the problem of conflicting religious experience? What are the criteria of truth in questions of the supernatural? Appeals to authority (texts, institutions, persons, warm fuzzies) seems to be the norm in mainstream religion. This fails basic logic and epistemology in my opinion. Sorry for ranting a bit.

[divinum1]

I would think that the origin of contingent being would be wholly transcendent and therefore beyond dimensionality, and indeed any categories of human thought. The way I see things, a description of the divine could be at best apophatic and would not refer directly to divine being in itself. What you describe - as being presumably the structure of divine being - strikes me as implying a metaphysical substrate. In what space is God a vector quantity? Et cetera.

 

I realize you're trying to say that the divine nature is in some sense number, space and light as such, but why say this in terms of a vector quantity? Also, God is basically the categories of Aristotle? Huh? You've completely lost me with your explanation of God as light. Please elaborate.

 

Cheers.

 

From eternity God was just a void and darkness upon the face of the deep, and then he somehow turned into light (motion that is). And this is how he first transformed into the so called "Spirit" which means "breath", which clearly means that its motion (light) was not rectilinear nor circular, but breath like motion, meaning that it is bound to an expansion and contraction as if inhaling and exhaling. And this is the state that he now exists in, but in the Bible is defined as "light" or as "Spirit" both of which refer to the same thing, a breath like motion of his own Godhead. And as he turned into light that was the time when he first came to "life". And he thus became conscious of himself. And he saw that it was good. And then... he continued in his quest?, which obvious:

 

God is just a term used to describe a being beyond comprehension.

 

To understand the reality of God is not easy, but to describe it (him) is even harder.

 

For God is all and throughout all, but in the beginning he divided himself into two equal halves. From one he created the physical world, while the other half is directly subject to him, which is above the physical world, and is considered as being metaphysical, since it is in the highest form of "light" (energy that is).

Hence his actual reality is invisible and unapproachable from our level below.

But the physical world became created though an addition- multiplication and subtraction- division of God,s own divinities, which transformed into bigger integers called Numbers, Space and Light, and from them is the physical world made. And there are three level of such Numbers, Space and Light, primary, secondary, and tertiary. And the primary level is in his hands, where from all the power, and life is distributed in accordance of his will, and more:

 

God is just a term used to describe a being beyond comprehension.

 

To understand the reality of God is not easy, but to describe it (him) is even harder.

 

For God is all and throughout all, but in the beginning he divided himself into two equal halves. From one he created the physical world, while the other half is directly subject to him, which is above the physical world, and is considered as being metaphysical, since it is in the highest form of "light" (energy that is).

Hence his actual reality is invisible and unapproachable from our level below.

But the physical world became created though an addition- multiplication and subtraction- division of God,s own divinities, which transformed into bigger integers called Numbers, Space and Light, and from them is the physical world made. And there are three level of such Numbers, Space and Light, primary, secondary, and tertiary. And the primary level is in his hands, where from all the power, and life is distributed in accordance of his will, and more:

[PeterJ]

To my way of thinking God (in se) cannot be described in terms of being, as the term God refers to the ultimate origin and so-called ground of being. To me, the idea of a scientific concept of God makes little sense as science and religion are predicated upon two quite distinct branches of epistemology. The validity of scientific epistemology is to me practically beyond question; the nature and validity of religious epistemology is something that I do not currently understand but I am open to it. Such a fundamental bifurcation of truth is a problem, in my opinion. Also, the possibility of opening the door to pseudo-science and absurdity is a problem. The thinking of people like Spinoza and Leibnitz is somewhat compelling to me, but there are so many questions. How do we know anything about God at all? What is the role of private religious experience and mysticism? How does this account for the problem of conflicting religious experience? What are the criteria of truth in questions of the supernatural? Appeals to authority (texts, institutions, persons, warm fuzzies) seems to be the norm in mainstream religion. This fails basic logic and epistemology in my opinion. Sorry for ranting a bit.

Asinine, I can agree with all of that. Some very good points. I'd just suggest that pseudo-religion is as much of a problem as pseudo-science. Your questions are all important and deserve answers. They all have answers, I think, but one has to navigate ones way through a lot of smoke and mirrors to get to them.

[fweatherbee]

How about this, Father, Son, and the Holy spirit. Space, Time, and light?

Edited November 11, 2011 by fweatherbee

[iNow]

How about this, Father, Son, and the Holy spirit. Space, Time, and light?

Or... Indolence, Indoctrination, and Ignorance.

[divinum1]

How about this, Father, Son, and the Holy spirit. Space, Time, and light?

 

When God first separated the light (the moving part of his Godhead that is), he then existed as one single entity-divinity, apart from his dark part. And then he divided his Day (light part) into a multitude of smaller divinities. And these smaller divinities were the first descendants from "God the Father", and they were thus called; the "Sons" (pl). And since they were direct descendants of God the Father, they thus inherited all the qualities and quantities as God pertained them within himself. Therefore, God did not have to say unto them; Let there be light (let there be cooperation), for they knew what they have to do. For they had to light (to cooperate) with one another. And as they did so, they transformed into a "holiness" called the "Holy Spirit". And this is how God transformed from his Fatherly state into the Sons (pl), and then the Sons transformed into the Holy spirits (pl). And for this reason, God is known as a "Holy Trinity". Hence these three are not personalities in any sort, instead they are just the three basic divinities of God himself by which he created the world, both the heaven and the earth.

 

Numbers Space and Light are the three basic quantities which became established thereafter, when the Holy Spirits (pl) multiplied themselves, and transformed into a physical reality. And as a result, their state became directly proportional to one another in all three respects, all of which can be mathematically formulated and verified, in this physical world that is. Although I believe that the same principles apply even to the metaphysical world as well, since everything in the world is subject to the same principles.

[PeterJ]

I would think that the origin of contingent being would be wholly transcendent and therefore beyond dimensionality, and indeed any categories of human thought. The way I see things, a description of the divine could be at best apophatic and would not refer directly to divine being in itself. What you describe - as being presumably the structure of divine being - strikes me as implying a metaphysical substrate. In what space is God a vector quantity? Et cetera.

 

Cheers.

 

AC - Hi. Yes, this would be my view also.

 

I was very suprised to read in a later post that you think you do not understand the religious epistemology, and thus by implication its ontology. Maybe you were being modest. I assumed you were something of an expert when I read this para. You argue here for the cosmological scheme of the Buddha and Lao-tsu, and some would would say of Jesus and Mohammed et al., but seem to be sceptical of it at the same time. Have you really not connected this thought about transcendence with the claims of the perennial philosophy? I'll mention some connections.

 

The only metaphysic or worldview that is rigorously apophatic, such that the origin of contingent phenomena would in no case be 'this' or 'that', not even for 'existing' or 'not-existing', is a neutral metaphysical position, more commonly 'nondualism'. This assigns no partial properties to the original phenomenon.

 

To the extent that this view is theistic, or is spoken of theistically, then 'God' would lie 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories', which is to say, beyond the categories of thought. To find such a phenomenon would require an examination of what comes before the categories, thus before thought. Kant proposed that this phenomenon, which is not an instance of a category, is the proper subject for rational psychology, and Buddhists certainly think so. Not for nothing is the Holy Grail of Celtic and Christian metaphor and myth said to have the power to dissolve all distinctions, allowing us to transcend this universe of phenomenal pairs of opposites.

 

That the origin of mental and corporeal phenomena lies beyond the categories of thought is what the Buddhist philosopher-sage Nagarujna proves in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way many centuries before Kant, Hegel, Bradley and all.

 

I think the problem with coming up with a scientific definition of God is that there isn't one. Any idea we can have of Him is false and thus bound to be unscientific. I mean, what are the chances of us trying to imagine God and actually getting it right?

Edited November 15, 2011 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I think the problem with coming up with a scientific definition of God is that there isn't one. Any idea we can have of Him is false and thus bound to be unscientific. I mean, what are the chances of us trying to imagine God and actually getting it right?

 

But...perhaps the chances are good. Not to "agree" on a definition, but to imagine God and get it right.

 

Here is my logic. We each are in and of the world. Same world, different conciousnesses.

 

If you imagine God, and try to explain it to me, you will assign various attributes that I might not totally agree with. I might think you missed something that I noticed, or added something that I do not see.

 

But, if you have been careful to consider all that you know, and all that you are, and it all fits together in a comfortable and complete package, then it probably IS god that you are imagining. It is therefore, most likely right.

 

Now try to explain it to me, and we will run into some disagreements. Its way too big, way too old, and way too varied and detailed, for any "one" description, to contain it all.

 

Sort of like "the blind men and the elephant".

 

But that being said, there IS both a scientific and religious explanation.

 

A religious one if we take only our own explanation as true, and a scientific one if we take everybody's explanation as true.

 

Regards, TAR2