The "place" of God ?

[JimL]

Jim we don't know "how" God sees or for that matter how God "thinks" or "knows" or exactly how He extends His "power." I mean the actual mechanics of these functions. We only know from Revelation that He does.

I think that it would be more pertinent to say, not that you know, but that you "believe to know" through revelation the attributes of the God that you also "believe to know" of through revelation.

[RBerman]

I think that it would be more pertinent to say, not that you know, but that you "believe to know" through revelation the attributes of the God that you also "believe to know" of through revelation.

It's bad style to preface everything you say (really, anything you say) with "I believe..." Of course you believe it. That's why you're saying it. Just say what you believe, and the educated reader will understand that you're saying it because you believe it to be so, even if not everyone would agree with the thing you believe.

[JimL]

Sort of my point RB. It is bad style to preface anything you say with "We know,,," if in fact you do not know. But it is just a pet peave of mine and not really worthy of debate. Have you read my last reply to you? Any thoughts?

[RBerman]

Sort of my point RB. It is bad style to preface anything you say with "We know,,," if in fact you do not know. But it is just a pet peave of mine and not really worthy of debate. Have you read my last reply to you? Any thoughts?

In truth, my reply to your last post was "meh," but then I erased it. In a hopefully more articulate vein, everything you said seemed like guesswork wankery. But I know you don't have much regard for the authority behind my statements either.

[JimL]

In truth, my reply to your last post was "meh," but then I erased it. In a hopefully more articulate vein, everything you said seemed like guesswork wankery. But I know you don't have much regard for the authority behind my statements either.

And what exactly was it that seemed like guesswork wankery to you.? The fact that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of one and the same thing? The fact that particles and waves are one and the same thing? These are scientific facts, not an attempt to bamboozle you with language. The logical conclusion being that though the universe seems to us to be made up of component parts, to be divisible, it is really nothing other than changing forms within one and the same indivisible whole. I could be wrong of course, but I am certainly not trying to bamboozle you.

[RBerman]

[QUOTE=JimL;3291451]And what exactly was it that seemed like guesswork wankery to you.? The fact that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of one and the same thing? The fact that particles and waves are one and the same thing? These are scientific facts, not an attempt to bamboozle you with language. The logical conclusion being that though the universe seems to us to be made up of component parts, to be divisible, it is really nothing other than changing forms within one and the same indivisible whole. I could be wrong of course, but I am certainly not trying to bamboozle you.[/QUOTE

I don't think you're trying to be deceitful. Your analysis is simply non sequitur to say that because things can be grouped, therefore the whole is indivisible.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=JimL;3291451]And what exactly was it that seemed like guesswork wankery to you.? The fact that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of one and the same thing? The fact that particles and waves are one and the same thing? These are scientific facts, not an attempt to bamboozle you with language. The logical conclusion being that though the universe seems to us to be made up of component parts, to be divisible, it is really nothing other than changing forms within one and the same indivisible whole. I could be wrong of course, but I am certainly not trying to bamboozle you.[/QUOTE

don't think you're trying to be deceitful. Your analysis is simply non sequitur to say that because things can be grouped, therefore the whole is indivisible.

But my argument is not that things can be grouped, my argument is that they are different forms of one and the same thing. The universe is made of matter and energy, but matter and energy are one and the same thing, so the division that we observe between things may be an illusion.

[hackysack]

The knowledge of whats happening everywhere and at all times would be omniscience not omnipresence.

Maybe not if God can be thought to acheive infinite velocity at infinite acceleration.

[hackysack]

The universe though is an evolving singularity, as a whole it is defined by only one noun. Is it itself, considered as a whole, divisible?

I think that the universe, as a whole, may well not be subject to being taken apart such that it's 'separated' parts are inaccessible to each other by way of their own powers. But, if any current 'parts' of the universe can truly be said to be expanding and, or, evolving, then from whence the additional space and, or, information?

[Carlos]

[QUOTE=JimL;3292004]

And what exactly was it that seemed like guesswork wankery to you.? The fact that energy and matter are interchangeable forms of one and the same thing? The fact that particles and waves are one and the same thing? These are scientific facts, not an attempt to bamboozle you with language. The logical conclusion being that though the universe seems to us to be made up of component parts, to be divisible, it is really nothing other than changing forms within one and the same indivisible whole. I could be wrong of course, but I am certainly not trying to bamboozle you.[/QUOTE


But my argument is not that things can be grouped, my argument is that they are different forms of one and the same thing. The universe is made of matter and energy, but matter and energy are one and the same thing, so the division that we observe between things may be an illusion.

Not necessarily. While A and B can share some of their properties, that does not entail that A and B are identical. A and B can share the property of being physical (composed of energy), that does not entail that A and B are not separate things. Diamond and graphite are both composed entirely out of carbon atoms. Do they share all the same properties? Of course not.

[Talisin]

Let me start by saying I am not as educated as half of the people who post on these boards but what lack in education i make up for in interest. (with that i am jumping into this conversation)

The first question we have to ask ourselves is where did God/matter and energy come from? Everything on a fundamental level is made up of the same parts, exist on the same rules of physics yet their origins are from a questionable start. There are no logical conclusions that can bring us to a T=0 so we have to conclude that time is infinite and this universe my not have been the only in the past or present . What birthed the universe/multiverse from there, is the primal question that we try to wrap our minds around.
I couple my beliefs in science and religion, matter is a smaller aspect of god and every form of energy is an extension. To understand this better I have a short story.
The void of time was vast and unknown and In this void god and all his potential, longed for more. to be more and to know more. But to know more and to be more he had to brake himself down to explore all that he is, he had to cast himself into the void to gather what he wanted to become.
From that we can get where this is going. smaller forms of matter form larger,larger and more complex forms and over time we can see the will of god through the progression of evolution until we reach us. We become self aware and start to ask the questions we set out to know. Our thoughts on science, religion and theology evolve the stronger consuming the weaker until we stand at present day debating this issue. Every experience teaching us/God more. Expanding our potential. (I could get in this more and will if anyone is intrested)
Lets say for a moment this is how it is. Is god everywhere? No but we are expanding. Is god in everything? Yes and everything is in God.
Newtonian science, rules of karma and even the golden rule can be seen as a reflection of this. If I hurt you, I am only hurting myself. We have individuality but also a collective goal that is both harmed and helped by our individuality.

Thank you for your time
Eric

[Rushing Jaws]

Does God exist every "place", or is God himself every "place" that exists, for if God exists every "place" then something called "place" must necessarily have been existent prior to God in order that he exist within it, but if God himself is every "place" then everything must necessarily exist in God. But if everything that is exists in God, then everything that is is one with God. Notice that Universe could be inserted in the place of God above and you have the same result.

## All places are (as it were) "in" God, & "in Christ". God is not localised - that is to see things in reverse. Nothing is prior to God, for had ther been anything, God would not be God. But God is not dependent on any thing that is not God - He is not in place, not in time, but is is the "source" of both these relations, and all others. It makes no sense to talk of God as conditioned by or being from or in what is not God, because that is in effect to reduce God to a creature, to something dependent on the universe & part of it. But to worship that as God, would be to worship something that is not God - it would be idolatry. God is not the universe, any more than TLOTR is Tolkien - only the absurdity is even greater. STM that the relation to TLOTR of Tolkien is a very faint analogy of the relation of the universe to God. TLOTR compose itself or didn't write itself - and the universe did not invent itself, but is from God, all of it, in so far as it has any reality/being/goodness at all.

If one starts by refusing to allow all created being parity with God, then everything that is not God falls into place. If we allow creatures to be so important that God is thought of as down on a par with them (as though He were not instead "wholly other" than all creatures, as the One Who is Wholly Unique & Incomparable), then we cause problems for ourselves. God alone is Unconditioned Being - IOW, "God [Alone] is Love". God's Love (= God) is the "source" of all creatures. Nothing exists, until God creates it by loving what does not exist so that it comes into being. This is (AFAICS) in accord with what the NT says about His Grace: His love is prior to what He loves, & His love brings what is loved into being. Creation is an act of sheer grace, sheer needlessness. :)

[Rushing Jaws]

Forgot to mention - One of the Jewish epithets for God is "Maqom", "Place". And this may be of interest: http://skipmoen.com/tag/maqom/

[JimL]

## All places are (as it were) "in" God, & "in Christ". God is not localised - that is to see things in reverse. Nothing is prior to God, for had ther been anything, God would not be God. But God is not dependent on any thing that is not God - He is not in place, not in time, but is is the "source" of both these relations, and all others. It makes no sense to talk of God as conditioned by or being from or in what is not God, because that is in effect to reduce God to a creature, to something dependent on the universe & part of it. But to worship that as God, would be to worship something that is not God - it would be idolatry. God is not the universe, any more than TLOTR is Tolkien - only the absurdity is even greater. STM that the relation to TLOTR of Tolkien is a very faint analogy of the relation of the universe to God. TLOTR compose itself or didn't write itself - and the universe did not invent itself, but is from God, all of it, in so far as it has any reality/being/goodness at all.

If all places are in God, then all things are in God, and if all things are in God, if God is everywhere then how do you distinguish between God and the things in him? We could say that the Universe is the place of the things which exist within it, but does that distinguish the universe itself as a thing different and separate from the things within it?

If one starts by refusing to allow all created being parity with God, then everything that is not God falls into place. If we allow creatures to be so important that God is thought of as down on a par with them (as though He were not instead "wholly other" than all creatures, as the One Who is Wholly Unique & Incomparable), then we cause problems for ourselves. God alone is Unconditioned Being - IOW, "God [Alone] is Love". God's Love (= God) is the "source" of all creatures. Nothing exists, until God creates it by loving what does not exist so that it comes into being. This is (AFAICS) in accord with what the NT says about His Grace: His love is prior to what He loves, & His love brings what is loved into being. Creation is an act of sheer grace, sheer needlessness. :)

This part is not philosophy but theology so I will not comment on it.