07-20-2010, 12:04 AM
lex icon wrote:
The God presented by the Buddha above does not fit my logic of how I have come to perceive the God in this world. In short , God is pure energy, the hidden element in chemisrty, math, and light. Light cannot be really "seen", it simply makes seeing possible. Ninth
I think Buddha is saying of God that IF God is like this or that etc ..... then this ( whatever) does not make sense.
Ninth you say you perceive God, hmmm, perhaps you could share this perception so we too could perceive this? Which is actually something I have been asking you for years now. You have yet to tell me why you believe certain things. When pressed, your beliefs always seem so arbitrary.
Now you have stated quite categorically that "God is pure energy". I am asking how do you know this? You cannot just cop out and say faith. Something led you to believe in a particular way about something particular, in this case God as pure energy. And you have expressed this belief by your statement.
4.) It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause.
What do these words mean? Before we dismiss them lets first understand them. You do not have to agree or believe just understand.
Why can the absolute not be a cause?
I love the direction of this. Instead of challenging the existence of God directly, we are challenged instead to understand what Absolute means and how we apply the term. What is implicit in this; is absolute is an quality we (some) attribute to God. Religiously God is also considered the cause of what is created. But the writer has said, " that which is absolute cannot be a cause."
If we can establish what the writer is referring to here, then our ideas of God will need to be modified or discarded. But not just God our whole grasp of causation will be challenged down to the root of existence itself.
So again...
Why can the absolute not be a cause?Firstly, "God" that is written about cannot be interpreted by the minds of men What we know of God is a try at understanding the unthinkable based on comparisons of what we don't know about God. But this does not mean "God"does not exist. "God"does not fit our logic of space time continuum. God is not linear. The God described in only a hint of the real "God"of this universe, the essence of being and mystery behind and through out the universe(s). So yes it is neither this nor that about "God" and we have only evolved by speculating about what we don't really know . We look for a baseline or beginning point for our human linear way of thinking patterns. When God might be in cyclic circuitry that is outside our domain. Who can make sense of God if we have no real point of reference. So logically we point to zero as our point of reference.
The God presented by the Buddha above does not fit my logic of how I have come to perceive the God in this world. In short , God is pure energy, the hidden element in chemisrty, math, and light. Light cannot be really "seen", it simply makes seeing possible. Ninth
I think Buddha is saying of God that IF God is like this or that etc ..... then this ( whatever) does not make sense.
Ninth you say you perceive God, hmmm, perhaps you could share this perception so we too could perceive this? Which is actually something I have been asking you for years now. You have yet to tell me why you believe certain things. When pressed, your beliefs always seem so arbitrary.
Now you have stated quite categorically that "God is pure energy". I am asking how do you know this? You cannot just cop out and say faith. Something led you to believe in a particular way about something particular, in this case God as pure energy. And you have expressed this belief by your statement.
4.) It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause.
What do these words mean? Before we dismiss them lets first understand them. You do not have to agree or believe just understand.
Why can the absolute not be a cause?
I love the direction of this. Instead of challenging the existence of God directly, we are challenged instead to understand what Absolute means and how we apply the term. What is implicit in this; is absolute is an quality we (some) attribute to God. Religiously God is also considered the cause of what is created. But the writer has said, " that which is absolute cannot be a cause."
If we can establish what the writer is referring to here, then our ideas of God will need to be modified or discarded. But not just God our whole grasp of causation will be challenged down to the root of existence itself.
So again...
Why can the absolute not be a cause?Firstly, "God" that is written about cannot be interpreted by the minds of men What we know of God is a try at understanding the unthinkable based on comparisons of what we don't know about God. But this does not mean "God"does not exist. "God"does not fit our logic of space time continuum. God is not linear. The God described in only a hint of the real "God"of this universe, the essence of being and mystery behind and through out the universe(s). So yes it is neither this nor that about "God" and we have only evolved by speculating about what we don't really know . We look for a baseline or beginning point for our human linear way of thinking patterns. When God might be in cyclic circuitry that is outside our domain. Who can make sense of God if we have no real point of reference. So logically we point to zero as our point of reference.