Timeless existence

[Dancing David]

Only what is seen within - what is perceived - is changing. The seer is not. Whatever the seer sees, the seer remains, essentially, God.

I respectfully suggest the that you have set up a dualism:
The parts of the seer that are unchanging
and the pasrts of the seer athat are changing, IE thier perception.

I am assuming that the perception are part of the seer, are you making them seperate from the seer?

 

[lifegazer]

Let's try this again.

You have an unchanging God. Its form is incapable of change. Its mind is incapable of change. Any part of it is incapable of change. Hence, UNCHANGING.

Then something CHANGES.

Now you have an "unchanging" God whose mind has "contents" that change.

But the contents are not real. They are imaginary. So, nothing is really changing. All change (time) is an illusion.

How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his mind's "contents" to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

The unchanging God didn't change. The act of thinking about imaginary things does not change who God is.

Edit to add: The act of thinking/perceiving about things only changes what God is aware of. It does not change God itself.

 

[lifegazer]

I respectfully suggest the that you have set up a dualism:
The parts of the seer that are unchanging

The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"

and the pasrts of the seer athat are changing, IE thier perception.

These things are illusory. They don't have existence.
There can be no dualism between the seer and those things seen since those things seen do not exist.

Only the seer exists.

 

[Atlas]

Now you have an "unchanging" God whose mind has "contents" that change.
How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his mind's "contents" to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

Response by lifegazer
But the contents are not real. They are imaginary.

Originally posted by Dancing David
I respectfully suggest the that you have set up a dualism:
The parts of the seer that are unchanging...

Response by lifegazer
The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"
These things are illusory. They don't have existence.
Only the seer exists.

The seer is indivisible. The contents are imaginary, illusory, and don't have existence and they are indivisible with that seer.
Suggesting the seer too is imaginary and illusory... a lifegazer dream.

 

[Acrimonious]

The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"

OK...

The unchanging God didn't change. The act of thinking about imaginary things does not change who God is.

Edit to add: The act of thinking/perceiving about things only changes what God is aware of. It does not change God itself.

Wait a minute there, LG. First God is indivisible. Now, there's an unchanging part and a thinking part.
A real part, and an imagined part... From your own description, God sounds pretty darn divided to me.

This is yet another paradox. God is one or the other, LG. Either God is indivisible or God is divisible. You can't have it both ways, or your "philosophy" becomes contradictory and irrelevant.

Here's some more questions I have now that you've given this new data:

The obvious question: If God is INDIVISIBLE, why have you DIVIDED God into a physically real form and a mental imagination?

The recurring theme: If God is INDIVISIBLE and UNCHANGING, How can any part God (real or imagined: God is indivisible, see) CHANGE?

The bonus "awareness" question: If God is NOT indivisible, and the imaginary part CAN change, how is it possible for God's AWARENESS to change, when God is OMNISCIENT? God's awareness of everything would, by default, be UNCHANGING: It would always encompass everything.

 

[scribble]

An interesting game...

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Or something like that.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: An interesting game...

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Or something like that.

We'll have to start calling you cliche' girl.

 

[lifegazer]

Wait a minute there, LG. First God is indivisible. Now, there's an unchanging part and a thinking part.

God thinks. God doesn't have something else (another part) do God's thinking for it. I.e., God doesn't have a brain.

What this means, is the the act of thinking is a characteristic/trait of God. It's not a "part", but an ability.

The obvious question: If God is INDIVISIBLE, why have you DIVIDED God into a physically real form and a mental imagination?

I haven't. You don't know much about my philosophy for you to state this. My God is boundless (indivisible) existence, residing at singularity, without beginning or end (possessing no definite position).

The recurring theme: If God is INDIVISIBLE and UNCHANGING, How can any part God (real or imagined: God is indivisible, see) CHANGE?

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

The bonus "awareness" question: If God is NOT indivisible, and the imaginary part CAN change, how is it possible for God's AWARENESS to change, when God is OMNISCIENT? God's awareness of everything would, by default, be UNCHANGING: It would always encompass everything.

God is indivisible. Question void.

 

[Atlas]

Imagined parts aren't real...God is indivisible. Question void.

I like Vishnu for indivisibilty.

In the cosmic night before the appearance of the manifest world, Lord Vishnu sleeps in the cosmic ocean of causal waters, reclining on the serpent, Shesha , sometimes called, Ananta (meaning "the eternal"). Vishnu holds within his body all of the elements of creation, including the creator god, Brahma. As Vishnu dreams, a lotus plant grows out of his navel, and from a drop on one of the petals of the lotus, the creator god, Brahma, emerges. From Brahma emerges the great Cosmic Egg (Anda) which is this manifest universe, including the celestial worlds or heavens at the top, the mundane world of ordinary life in the middle, and the nether worlds or hells in the lower regions of the Cosmic Egg.

I think it's exactly the same as lifegazer describes, only different.
Very samefull and singularityish only with lots of stuff. Dreamstuff.

Is this helpful?

 

[Upchurch]

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

I think what he's saying is that if God is indivisible (i.e. you can't break God down into parts), then if a "part" of God changes, all of God is changing (that "part" being the whole indivisible thing, which is God). Further, it must be impossible to speak of God's mind, since that references a part of God, rather than the whole.

If God is indivisible into parts, then part of God cannot change and, at the same time, part of God can change because those parts would be the same part. It's a logical conflict.

 

[uruk]

What this means, is the the act of thinking is a characteristic/trait of God. It's not a "part", but an ability.

An ability implies change.

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

Yea, but something has to imagine. there has to be a process in imagining. the mind has to activle participate in imagining. there fore a change has to take place. god cannot be changeless and imagine.

God is indivisible. Question void.

restating dogma does not address the issue.

 

[Dancing David]

The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"

These things are illusory. They don't have existence.
There can be no dualism between the seer and those things seen since those things seen do not exist.

Only the seer exists.

That is a real nice dodge LifeGazer, but you are still a dualist! Monism is a very hard sell, because if everything is one then everything is part of the one.

Duality:
-the seer is real and indivisible
-the perceptions of the seer are illusiory even though they are part of the seer.

So again you have the duality in your alleged indivisible singularity. There is the god and then there is the god that is illusiory.

Why would there be seperate parts to an indivisble singularity?

To just say that they are illusiory is still a dualism.

 

[Dancing David]

God thinks. God doesn't have something else (another part) do God's thinking for it. I.e., God doesn't have a brain.

What this means, is the the act of thinking is a characteristic/trait of God. It's not a "part", but an ability.

I haven't. You don't know much about my philosophy for you to state this. My God is boundless (indivisible) existence, residing at singularity, without beginning or end (possessing no definite position).

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

God is indivisible. Question void.

So now you still have the dualism Lifegazer and just asserting that it isn't a dualism does not mean that you aren't taking a unity and dividing it.

So can abilities change, isn't this dualism, there is this god that is unchanging, and so now you give god abilities to avoid the idea that god has seperate parts. But abilities are still dualistic in nature.

Answer this
In the begining god was without illusion and unchanging.
God uses an ability to create perceptions that are illusiory.

Where do the perception occur? Even if they are illusiory that creates a duality of seer and illusion.

The solution of monism is obvious, and the obverse of nihilism.

If everything is one, and all that there is , is within the god, then all things(all things conceptual or actual) are within that god and therefore they are part of that god.

There is no illusion under monism LifeGazer, this is very old thought.

You are not a monist you are a gnostic!

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: An interesting game...

We'll have to start calling you cliche' girl.

Gee Scribble, you must have really got to him for him to whine like this!

I dub thee

Dogma Boy!

 

[Acrimonious]

I think what he's saying is that if God is indivisible (i.e. you can't break God down into parts), then if a "part" of God changes, all of God is changing (that "part" being the whole indivisible thing, which is God). Further, it must be impossible to speak of God's mind, since that references a part of God, rather than the whole.

If God is indivisible into parts, then part of God cannot change and, at the same time, part of God can change because those parts would be the same part. It's a logical conflict.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Lifegazer's dogma breaks down like this:
(A) God is indivisible and has no sub-parts.
(B) God is unchanging.
(C) God has a sub-part that can change.

(C) directly contradicts both (A) and (B). Lifegazer tries to rationalize this by saying the sub-part from (C) is imaginary and doesn't really count.

But it still leaves us with a divided God: The unchanging real part, and the changing imaginary part. This still directly contradicts (A).

All he needs to do to fix this obvious logical boo-boo is to admit he has a dualism:
(A) God is dual.
(B) The physical, real sub-part of God is unchanging
(C) The imaginary sub-part of God can change.

But this would require Lifegazer to admit he used a big philosophical word (indivisible) when he shouldn't have. Since he's here to preach, not to discuss, him admitting he made an error in his dogma has a very low probability of ever happening.

Since lg will never learn, I'm going to take a cue from Scribble. But this thread isn't a total loss, since I've gotten a nice signature out of it.

 

[lifegazer]

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Lifegazer's dogma breaks down like this:
(A) God is indivisible and has no sub-parts.
(B) God is unchanging.
(C) God has a sub-part that can change.

(C) directly contradicts both (A) and (B). Lifegazer tries to rationalize this by saying the sub-part from (C) is imaginary and doesn't really count.

But it still leaves us with a divided God: The unchanging real part, and the changing imaginary part. This still directly contradicts (A).

If I rationalise this by saying that the changing part is not real, where is the division? How can there be a real division between what is real and what isn't real?
Imagine a mermaid. How far beyond you is she? Where is the division between her and your awareness?

Clearly, there is no such distance or division between your awareness and the things imagined within it. Likewise for God.
There is no division between God and what he imagines within "his" awareness.

You're still treating imaginary things as real objects. This is the source of your own confusion.

All he needs to do to fix this obvious logical boo-boo is to admit he has a dualism:
(A) God is dual.
(B) The physical, real sub-part of God is unchanging
(C) The imaginary sub-part of God can change.

(A) I'll admit no such thing. You are making the boo-boo.
(B) God is not "physical".
(C) Imaginary things change. Not God.

But this would require Lifegazer to admit he used a big philosophical word (indivisible) when he shouldn't have. Since he's here to preach, not to discuss, him admitting he made an error in his dogma has a very low probability of ever happening.

I have used reason every step of the way here. Don't accuse me of preaching. I've tried my utmost to explain to you why there is no real division between God and the things within God's perception. How can there be any division when those things don't even exist?
All that exists, is God, complete with awareness. An awareness that is free to think of various things without affecting any fundamental change in the nature of God itself.

What's the difference between God and God imagining a mermaid? Same God, different thoughts.

Since lg will never learn, I'm going to take a cue from Scribble. But this thread isn't a total loss, since I've gotten a nice signature out of it.

Okay, walk away then.

 

[lifegazer]

An ability implies change.

The ability to have thoughts is a trait of God. The eventuality of God having thoughts does not change God. It just changes what God is thinking about, if anything.

Yea, but something has to imagine. there has to be a process in imagining. the mind has to activle participate in imagining. there fore a change has to take place. god cannot be changeless and imagine.

The Mind/awareness is indivisible. There are no two separate points of existence within it. Indeed, such things are impossible in a boundless singularity.
Therefore, God is not a body with different points/parts. Therefore, any mental/emotional act undertaken by God changes nothing within the singularity of that God.

All that changes, is imaginary things within that singularity of awareness. That's a fact.

Now, if you want to ask me how God creates a whole realm of imaginary things within a singularity of awareness, then I won't be able to answer. Only God itself (not lifegazer) can answer that.

 

[Dancing David]

But if god changes from a state of thinking about one thing to another, that is a change.

And now you still have the duality of
-god:real
-what god imagines:not real

so is god's imagination part of god?

 

[lifegazer]

But if god changes from a state of thinking about one thing to another, that is a change.

Why do you all keep repeating the same mistake?
The only thing that changes, is the imaginary things within God's awareness. Since these things are not real however, then
nothing changes whatsoever.

There's no difference between God and God thinking about a mermaid. The only difference is in the things God is thinking about. Yet these things are not real anyway. Nothing ever changes, except what's upon God's awareness.

There are no two points of existence within God. God cannot change. The attributes of God are not attributes of a body, but of the whole indivisible mind/spirit/soul. Whatever you want to label The existence of God.

so is god's imagination part of god?

It's a trait. It's not a part, and definitely not apart.

 

[lifegazer]

I like Vishnu for indivisibilty.

I wouldn't like to comment since I don't know enough about it. It's slightly vague.

I did read the Bhagavad Gita recently and was very impressed with it.

I also think that Jesus (not Christianity) had the same philosophy as me. I was particularly awestruck by John's mystical testament.
I liked Isiah, too.

It appears to me that a few religions have tried to portray God as the whole of existence, but that through time, mankind has contaminated those teachings. I cannot be a Christian, for example, even though I think Jesus was who he proclaimed to be.

My philosophy challenges the establishments of philosophy, science and religion.

Only God exists. You are God. Distance yourself from your sensations and know thyself.