If only "One thing" exists, then...

[Benguin]

I am a solipsist in the sense that only God exists, not in the sense that only I (Lg) exist. I contend that even the sense of being human is something which exists within awareness alone. The question is: who is the essence of that awareness?

OK, well it is still solpsism in the sense that logic doesn't apply as your diety controls absolutely everything and can change all things at a whim. So it is now ipse dixit. And a philosophical dead end.

Also, the things within awareness are all related - interconnected - by the singular order which we observe those things "dancing" to.
Science is currently trying to relate all particles to the same thing, for example.
So even science recognises this relationship.

Syllogistic comparison. Science may seek to establish and define relationships, but that doesn't support a case that all things are necessarily interconnected, causally or otherwise.

Even if it did (as big bang theory suggests all coming out of one 'thing') the necessity of an entity willing it all along is nowhere to be found.

I contend that an entity exists - possessing desire and will (and hence the knowhow - intelligence - to do what it has done) - which has created the entire universe as perceived by humankind. And you say that there is no evidence therein of a 'God'?

No there is not. ipse dixit again, a contention. I do agree that if you suggest you are seeking only proof of 'a god' then the argument has potential ... you are misdirecting from the point I have made twice. Assuming something existed that willed the one thing in place initially (or whatever you say it did) then what of it? Does that diety still exist? what is it? Malevolent or benevolent? omnipotent or capable only of the action you describe?

As I mentioned higher up, this line of reasoning has been going on for many centuries, it is flawed and not worth continuing unless you can present an extension to the argument or a new part, not already summarised in the Kalam school one and a half millenia ago.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
I contend that an entity exists - possessing desire and will (and hence the knowhow - intelligence - to do what it has done) - which has created the entire universe as perceived by humankind. And you say that there is no evidence therein of a 'God'?

Contend all you like. Call it what you will. What difference does it make?

The title of this thread implies the existence of only one thing, but you seem to be talking about both a creator and the created.

Oh, and who created the creator?

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

Please remember that no-thing within perception (sensory stimulae are not without cause) can be 'acausal' in itself. Therefore, spare me your mantras pertaining to QM.

Okay, so I keep reading this, but all I see is "I don't want to hear factual points that contradict my claim."

But then, lifegazer talks about the "only thing that exists" creating other things, which would necessarily make the "only thing that exists" not the only thing that exists which, ironically contradicts his claim.

 

[daenku32]

Water wills things without any intellect.

Why wouldn't basic non-intellect energy.

 

[Iacchus]

The title of this thread implies the existence of only one thing, but you seem to be talking about both a creator and the created.

Oh, and who created the creator?

~~ Paul

Yes, the Universe and God are One.

 

[scribble]

Oh, and who created the creator?

"You think you're so clever, young man! Well, it's turtles, all the way down!"

 

[Bubbles]

Yes, the Universe and God are One.

Not a statement I had expected from you. That sounds quite pantheistic. I didn't think that was your viewpoint.

I'll offer mine. I begin with the definition that God is the greatest possible being and the assumption that God exists.

The first problem with this statement is this: how can anything BUT God exist. If God exists and other things exist, then there is a possible thing arithmetically greater than God (it would have both God's existence and mine). God then would not be God.

I would answer that in this way: God has existence in himself where all else (creation) shares in God's existence. To put it another way: a house derives its becoming from the builder. If he ceases to be active on the house, it ceases to become. It does not cease to be, as it does not derive its being from the builder. If God were to cease to be active in (though I prefer the term present to) creation, it would cease to be, as it derives its being from God and not only its becoming.

Consequently, it can be said that God has all of the existence that there is, and that all else that is is by virtue of sharing in his is-ness.

The chief problem I see in my thinking is that it supposes that arithmetic increase is improvement. That is to say, that if God had more of something, God would be greater. I'm not sure I would think Halle Berry more beautiful if she were twice as tall as she is.

Anyway, this is not meant as a proof in an sense, only as a viewpoint and the way that I arrive at it.

 

[Navigator]

The Universe in itself is one unique thing.

Within it, there appear to be countless individually unique 'things'.

These are Galaxies.

Within these countless Galaxies, there are countless unique things.

So, in that sense, all is ONE, no matter that there are different things contained in the One thing.

The fact that there is this uniqueness to individual things, reflects the fact that All is One thing.

Unique.

This is for me the most revealing thing about this universe.

There are various grades of individual awareness. Another thing about this Universe is that it appears to be expanding and so does awareness.

Intelligence which choses to stay in one place and even be static and unmoving, is quiet unnatural.

 

[Tricky]

I'll offer mine. I begin with the definition that God is the greatest possible being and the assumption that God exists.

I realize that this is just a statement of how you feel and not intended to be a proof, but if I may ask, on what do you base the assumption that God exists?

 

[Iacchus]

Not a statement I had expected from you. That sounds quite pantheistic. I didn't think that was your viewpoint.

And why can't pantheism be merely a manifestation of The One? And what does the first commandment say, "Thou shalt have no gods before me?" So what else could that possibly imply, but one God in essence? And, so long as you understand this, maybe the other gods don't have to become quite such a big issue? Also, if Jesus were the son of God and, by believing in Jesus we become "sons of God," what might that imply? That there's room for more than one? This is none other than what an angel is by the way, someone who is deceased and gone to heaven. And who knows, maybe some of the other gods which have approached men, were actually angels?

 

[Iacchus]

By the way, it was purported that the Greek gods orginated from the human race, and I don't mean as phantoms in someone's mind.

 

[Ratman_tf]

By the way, it was purported that the Greek gods orginated from the human race, and I don't mean as phantoms in someone's mind.

Um, weren't the greek gods supposed to have come from the Titans?

 

[Tricky]

And why can't pantheism be merely a manifestation of The One? And what does the first commandment say, "Thou shalt have no gods before me?" So what else could that possibly imply, but one God in essence?

The most obvious thing it implies is that there are lots of other gods out there, but you can't have 'em!

If, in fact all the other "gods" were one, in essence, then it makes absolutely no sense for God to tell people not to worship them. After all, that would mean that they all are Him. How could God be jealous of Himself?

And, so long as you understand this, maybe the other gods don't have to become quite such a big issue? Also, if Jesus were the son of God and, by believing in Jesus we become "sons of God," what might that imply? That there's room for more than one? This is none other than what an angel is by the way, someone who is deceased and gone to heaven. And who knows, maybe some of the other gods which have approached men, were actually angels?

The Greeks, the Norse and others had the ideas of gods with limited power, but they certainly were not in agreement about much of anything, and they weren't derived from deceased men, but rather, as been pointed out, from the Titans, and some, like Athena/Minerva, from other gods.

I would like to see the scriptural reference, by the way, that suggests that an angel is someone who is deceased. Lucifer? Gabriel? Michael? Who were their human counterparts?

But the concept of angels as demi-gods is problematic. Are they all in sync with the big guy, or do they have their own private intra-angelic squabbles?

And if angels were the "other gods", The God has told us not to worship them. So now we can't worship angels. How about the Virgin Mary? Is it okay to worship her?

Sorry Iacchus, your argument is just fraught with self-contradiction, which means it is perfectly normal for a religion.

 

[Iacchus]

The Universe is One, it all comes from the same place, even such things as our "petty" little idiosyncrasies.

 

[Iacchus]

I would like to see the scriptural reference, by the way, that suggests that an angel is someone who is deceased ...

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. ~ Matthew 22:23-32

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. ~ Romans 8:14-19

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. ~ John 1:12-13

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. ~ 1 John 3:1-2

 

[Tricky]

Only one of those verses makes any direct reference to angels:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It doesn't say they become angels, but just become like them in ways he then describes. Neither does this answer my question of where the well-known angels come from. Interestingly, it also appears from this verse that all marriages are off in heaven. So much for being reunited with your loved ones.

Doesn't sound like a place I'd like to go, not that there's much chance of that.

 

[Iacchus]

Only one of those verses makes any direct reference to angels:


It doesn't say they become angels, but just become like them in ways he then describes. Neither does this answer my question of where the well-known angels come from. Interestingly, it also appears from this verse that all marriages are off in heaven. So much for being reunited with your loved ones.

Doesn't sound like a place I'd like to go, not that there's much chance of that.

What are you expecting a literal translation here?

6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ~
Revelation 19:6-10

Hey, if this is not an angel he's speaking to or, God Himself, who might it be? Obviously someone with great power right? It's like I said, who's to say the mortals of antiquity weren't in fact impressed with beings like this when it came to establishing their religion?

 

[Tricky]

What are you expecting a literal translation here?


Hey, if this is not an angel he's speaking to or, God Himself, who might it be? Obviously someone with great power right? It's like I said, who's to say the mortals of antiquity weren't in fact impressed with beings like this when it came to establishing their religion?

Because the "beings like these" as described in pre-Christian legends sound nothing like the "angelic" beings that your selected verses seem to refer to. The Greek, Roman and Norse gods are very petty, they have little or no concern at all for humans, and they fight with each other constantly. There is nothing in those stories that suggests they might be the same creatures as the angels as depicted by the Bible. Nor do they seem to show any kind of singular consciousness that guides them.

But it really doesn't matter since the Greek, Roman and Norse gods are just mythological.

 

[Doctor X]

Now wait!

The Norse gods . . . surely you concede they are real!

--J.D.

 

[Iacchus]

Because the "beings like these" as described in pre-Christian legends sound nothing like the "angelic" beings that your selected verses seem to refer to. The Greek, Roman and Norse gods are very petty, they have little or no concern at all for humans, and they fight with each other constantly. There is nothing in those stories that suggests they might be the same creatures as the angels as depicted by the Bible. Nor do they seem to show any kind of singular consciousness that guides them.

But it really doesn't matter since the Greek, Roman and Norse gods are just mythological.

Of course we are referring to different religions here, where one is more concerned with an essential God, and the others are more humanistic, hence archetypal. Either way, they each have their merits. As far as mythology is concerned, most myths are based upon something actual.