the mind of a god

[shunyadragon]

Hi Griggsy,

All my previous posts stand as Self-evident, - it appears there are only problems from your perspective on what we nominate 'God', and I have merely IDentified 'God' as the original source, substance, being, intelligence that sustains the Entirety of Existence.....being the Core-Reality of all 'being' and 'consciousness' existing. This IDentificaiton of 'God' is present within the realization of 'I AM'.

There are no points of yours or anyone esles to disprove, but only to attend to the Reality Now Being which as I have repeatedly shared is Self-evident. You or Z have not disproved that a Mind of God exists, but I have shown that the very mind you're using now to read these words is proof enough, for this intelligence/awareness exists witin the Matrix of Light that is 'God' - again, the issue seems to be 'nomination' of the term 'God' and then we would have to elaborate what 'God' means - I hold to some of the fundamentals of what 'God' is as classically held by theology, but to even greater universal and cosmic levels as well....so my view of 'God' is not limited to any one theistic tradition.(christian or otherwise).

Again, I dont believe I have emphasized 'faith' in the discourses much at all,....except that 'faith' is defined in scripture as the evidence of things not seen,....the substance of that which consciousness aspires towards in ever unfolding creation, as its evident that intelligence is ever observing and creating the environs that it is inspired to enjoy as one evolves in the Light.

Indeed, 'God' is just a term/title given to a purported reality or being (or 'Mind' in this case) - it can mean whatever the user/reader intends or interprets it to mean. I dont even have to 'believe' for this God to Be......and this is far from a circular argument, in fact there is no argument, because Truth/Reality is already Being. I happen to IDentify this Light, Being, Mind, Spirit, Intelligence as 'God'. This 'God' needs no proving To Be...for It already Is the Only Reality Being. This truth of Consciousness/Existence is validated in the realization of 'I AM'. This is all the proof that is needed, if any is called for...for 'God'.

One is free to accept this contextual understanding native to ones own existence or he can entertain/believe other formats of understanding/conclusions.



en-joying the adventure,

paul

Eventhough I believe in God, and there is evidence for a 'Source' in nature, your argument for a mind is very weak and founded only in broad sweeping generalities, 'as I see it', which does not present a convincing argument.

The Christian perspective of the 'Mind' as a Creator they see in existence is indeed an anthropomorphic view, and presented this way throughout the Bible, which would be the source of guidance for Christian belief.

The bottom line is the natural nature of existence that is apparent in the evidence we have for the nature of existence doe not present a good argument for an all powerful all mighty 'Mind' as a Creator of existence. It becomes a paradox to present this argument of God as evidence of a 'Mind' and then say that all this vastness of 'Divine Creation' is focused on only a chosen few Chosen Christians in the vaste creation, not even taking into consideration the vasteness of human history and that of some higher mammals, which is the only apparent evidence we have for a 'mind'.

If we are going to present an effective argument for a 'Source' based on the broader perspective of what we know about the nature of existence, that some call God, we would have to detach ourselves from any one narrow cultural/religious perspective, and the very human concept of the 'Mind', and seek a greater perspective that reflects what we witness as the nature of existence.

A good analogy that Griggsy presents is the moon. One may clearly see a man's face in the moon, but Chinese see a rabbit, a woman, a tree and a wood cutter. Scientists see a crater pocked natural satalite of earth billions of years old.

[Griggsy]

Eventhough I believe in God, and there is evidence for a 'Source' in nature, your argument for a mind is very weak and founded only in broad sweeping generalities, 'as I see it', which does not present a convincing argument.

The Christian perspective of the 'Mind' as a Creator they see in existence is indeed an anthropomorphic view, and presented this way throughout the Bible, which would be the source of guidance for Christian belief.

The bottom line is the natural nature of existence that is apparent in the evidence we have for the nature of existence doe not present a good argument for an all powerful all mighty 'Mind' as a Creator of existence. It becomes a paradox to present this argument of God as evidence of a 'Mind' and then say that all this vastness of 'Divine Creation' is focused on only a chosen few Chosen Christians in the vaste creation, not even taking into consideration the vasteness of human history and that of some higher mammals, which is the only apparent evidence we have for a 'mind'.

If we are going to present an effective argument for a 'Source' based on the broader perspective of what we know about the nature of existence, that some call God, we would have to detach ourselves from any one narrow cultural/religious perspective, and the very human concept of the 'Mind', and seek a greater perspective that reflects what we witness as the nature of existence.

A good analogy that Griggsy presents is the moon. One may clearly see a man's face in the moon, but Chinese see a rabbit, a woman, a tree and a wood cutter. Scientists see a crater pocked natural satalite of earth billions of years old.

Shunydragon, thanks for the good response. You are a delight. As my signature statement indicates I do not know everything ,but I require reason and facts ,not circular arguments .

[freelight]

The Christian perspective of the 'Mind' as a Creator they see in existence is indeed an anthropomorphic view, and presented this way throughout the Bible, which would be the source of guidance for Christian belief.

The bottom line is the natural nature of existence that is apparent in the evidence we have for the nature of existence doe not present a good argument for an all powerful all mighty 'Mind' as a Creator of existence. It becomes a paradox to present this argument of God as evidence of a 'Mind' and then say that all this vastness of 'Divine Creation' is focused on only a chosen few Chosen Christians in the vaste creation, not even taking into consideration the vasteness of human history and that of some higher mammals, which is the only apparent evidence we have for a 'mind'.

hi shuny,

I've not brought an anthropomorphic 'god' into this discussion neither a 'christian' one necessarily. My commentary stands....and God as the 'I AM' Reality (which is divine Being and Consciousness IS its own witness for BEING). Combine that with universal classical definition of 'God' and you have a 'Mind' that is Omni, infinite, eternal, ever-being. Infinite Intelligence or Cosmic Consciousness is the Ocean in which all things/beings subsist, - the Mind of Universal Soul sheds its Light on and thru All, and not just a small chosen group. God is the Universal One.

If we are going to present an effective argument for a 'Source' based on the broader perspective of what we know about the nature of existence, that some call God, we would have to detach ourselves from any one narrow cultural/religious perspective, and the very human concept of the 'Mind', and seek a greater perspective that reflects what we witness as the nature of existence.

I wasnt aware that my definition/perception of Mind only came from one narroe cultural/religious perspective - could you quote me on that? INdeed,..the Nature and glory of Consciousness is universally wondrous and this Mind behold the totality of Existence in Nature and in all worlds in the vast Infinite Universe. The very miracle of consciousness ItSelf.....reveals an Intelligence whose source one may call 'God' - its a matter of nomination as I shared earlier. To me.....this God-Presence is realized/experienced NOW as 'I AM' - the Name of God that is recognizing ItSelf as BEING. This Awareness is Self Evident and is the sole witness of existence. The glory and order of creation points to an infinite Intelligence, a Master Mind.


If you have a better 'argument' (to this is no argument, but 'God' is Self evident) to share, lavish us. Also be careful before you judge a posters perspective without further research







paul

[freelight]

free light, how do you know that consciusness exists eternally without begging the question and science does not show any consciousness before the Big Bang.How can consciousness exist in a disembodied mind when we have no evidence of any such being. Once again , we do know that natural causation is the driving force inside the cosmos and not in need of a force behind it, one that would contradict it. To see a mind behind nature is to see an antropomorphic force , for one is assuming a mind superior to ones own when that is just a paradelia notion , a projection of mind when projection is just subjective . It is like seeing the man on the moon- you see it , others do not.

I, along with millions of others......merely call the One Supreme Being or Mind that is behind all existence 'God'. I've explained my description of God already relative to being the original, universal and all-encompassing Consciousness that Exists as the background or contextual ground for all manifest Existence. This 'God' is Infinite Intelligence as is defined by almost all religious traditional understandings of God.

There is no scientific proof of Mind beginning only with a Big Bang or with some creation event. If so please present the evidence. (also one must consider not all spiritual realities can at this present time be 'scientifically' proved - 'science' is not the only criteria that exists to prove 'reality'...let alone mind or spirit realities).

It is quite Logical when one views the beauty and order of the Universe that a Master Mind is behind it, orchestrating and upholding everything as it follows its course - It is this very Mind and its intrinsic laws or constitution that govern the forces the operate within the medium of conditional Existence(Nature) and beyond.

This logic is shared by millions of other souls on the planet and probably on other planets who intuitively sense the Presence of a Universal Mind that pervades and governs the Grand Universe of universes. Each will unfold within the light/revelation of their own souls in growing in God-consciousness. Also at various stages...each will see/perceive 'God' differently according to to the degree-development of light within.



In the meantime......I AM. This is proof enough for the wonder and reality of My Existence/Being.....which is the only place in consciousness that I can contact, realize, and know the One I AM Presence....which many of us call 'God'.


Seeking so called scientific evidence for 'God' first, as if science has all the answers and methods of proving absolute truths is inadequate...as mindal and spiritual truths exist on their own plane of being. God can be directly accessed NOW in the soul/spirit/heart of the individual soul...because the soul is an individuation of 'God'....realizing ItSelf as a Self-consciousness Being....illumined by MIND






paul

[shunyadragon]

hi shuny,

I've not brought an anthropomorphic 'god' into this discussion neither a 'christian' one necessarily. My commentary stands....and God as the 'I AM' Reality (which is divine Being and Consciousness IS its own witness for BEING). Combine that with universal classical definition of 'God' and you have a 'Mind' that is Omni, infinite, eternal, ever-being. Infinite Intelligence or Cosmic Consciousness is the Ocean in which all things/beings subsist, - the Mind of Universal Soul sheds its Light on and thru All, and not just a small chosen group. God is the Universal One.

The concept of 'I AM' is a distinctly anthropomorphic Biblical concept. 'I' being an anthropomorphic identity. Other religions like Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism consider there is a 'Source', but one not defined as a Being or the anthropomorphic concept of 'I AM'

I wasnt aware that my definition/perception of Mind only came from one narroe cultural/religious perspective - could you quote me on that? INdeed,..the Nature and glory of Consciousness is universally wondrous and this Mind behold the totality of Existence in Nature and in all worlds in the vast Infinite Universe. The very miracle of consciousness ItSelf.....reveals an Intelligence whose source one may call 'God' - its a matter of nomination as I shared earlier. To me.....this God-Presence is realized/experienced NOW as 'I AM' - the Name of God that is recognizing ItSelf as BEING. This Awareness is Self Evident and is the sole witness of existence. The glory and order of creation points to an infinite Intelligence, a Master Mind.

The concept of God as a being 'I AM' is a distinctly Judeo/Christian Biblical concept. The nature of the 'Source' even in Islam is not as nrrowly defined as this.

If you have a better 'argument' (to this is no argument, but 'God' is Self evident) to share, lavish us. Also be careful before you judge a posters perspective without further research

I did not judge any ones perspective as false, just that your argument was weak. Research as well as any other scientific investigation could only bear witness to the nature of exsitence, and not determine the 'Source' if a source exists.

My argument is not based on any assumption of human attributes, such as intelligence or an identity that would be defined as a 'Being'. The simple first assumption is if a 'Source' exists we cannot define it in these limited human terms, or from the perspective of ane on religion. The second assumption is that if a 'Source' exists it reflects the reality of the natural existence, and what we call God would be a very natural God. More to follow.

[Griggsy]

The concept of 'I AM' is a distinctly anthropomorphic Biblical concept. 'I' being an anthropomorphic identity. Other religions like Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism consider there is a 'Source', but one not defined as a Being or the anthropomorphic concept of 'I AM'



The concept of God as a being 'I AM' is a distinctly Judeo/Christian Biblical concept. The nature of the 'Source' even in Islam is not as nrrowly defined as this.




I did not judge any ones perspective as false, just that your argument was weak. Research as well as any other scientific investigation could only bear witness to the nature of exsitence, and not determine the 'Source' if a source exists.

My argument is not based on any assumption of human attributes, such as intelligence or an identity that would be defined as a 'Being'. The simple first assumption is if a 'Source' exists we cannot define it in these limited human terms, or from the perspective of ane on religion. The second assumption is that if a 'Source' exists it reflects the reality of the natural existence, and what we call God would be a very natural God. More to follow.

The problem with anthroporphism is that it assumes what must be shown - a guiding intelligence And natural selection is the mindless designer that needs no back up. To say the backup- a super intellignce- is metaphysical is another circular argument , for one should show there is a metaphysical need that a physical one cannot muster . I have shown that Existence through natural selection is the Designer metaphysically. Anyway , make an argument without begging the question .And why should the biblical god be the one in question? Why not many gods? Why not the deistic one? Let us entertain other notions of a god. There is the limited one of Hartshorne and Brightman . There is the pantheistic one of Spinoza. As my signature attests , I don't have the last word,but like Socrates I will propose arguments. Oh, why not goddesses?

[shunyadragon]

The problem with anthroporphism is that it assumes what must be shown - a guiding intelligence And natural selection is the mindless designer that needs no back up. To say the backup- a super intellignce- is metaphysical is another circular argument , for one should show there is a metaphysical need that a physical one cannot muster . I have shown that Existence through natural selection is the Designer metaphysically. Anyway , make an argument without begging the question .And why should the biblical god be the one in question? Why not many gods? Why not the deistic one? Let us entertain other notions of a god. There is the limited one of Hartshorne and Brightman . There is the pantheistic one of Spinoza. As my signature attests , I don't have the last word,but like Socrates I will propose arguments. Oh, why not goddesses?

Yes, anthropomorphism prevalent in Theistic beliefs do assume a 'guiding intelligence' as the basis of theism, but his view is not necessary in a nature of a 'Source' if it exists.

The Biblical God need not be the God in question. It is my assumption that the many various divergent views of a god or multiple gods, are simply the various human views of God and not the nature of a 'Source' that I would present an argument for. The only thing I could conclude is that these different views may in some way reflect some attirbutes of a 'Source'.

The nature of existence, as we primarilly understand it through science would only be capable of determining the attributes of existence and would be neutral for the most part in any argument for or against the existence of a 'Source' some call God. If the existence we experience is the creation of a 'Source', than the nature of this existence is our best witness as to the nature of this 'Source'.

[Griggsy]

Yes, anthropomorphism prevalent in Theistic beliefs do assume a 'guiding intelligence' as the basis of theism, but his view is not necessary in a nature of a 'Source' if it exists.

The Biblical God need not be the God in question. It is my assumption that the many various divergent views of a god or multiple gods, are simply the various human views of God and not the nature of a 'Source' that I would present an argument for. The only thing I could conclude is that these different views may in some way reflect some attirbutes of a 'Source'.

The nature of existence, as we primarilly understand it through science would only be capable of determining the attributes of existence and would be neutral for the most part in any argument for or against the existence of a 'Source' some call God. If the existence we experience is the creation of a 'Source', than the nature of this existence is our best witness as to the nature of this 'Source'.

So what is the argument for the Source without going in a circle? I see mindless Existence as the Source. Could your Source be limited rather than omnipotent?

[cbro]

So what is the argument for the Source without going in a circle? I see mindless Existence as the Source. Could your Source be limited rather than omnipotent?

Is saying that "the nature of this existence is our best witness as to the nature of this 'Source'". Going in a circle?

[shunyadragon]

Is saying that "the nature of this existence is our best witness as to the nature of this 'Source'". Going in a circle?

No, this is just a statement of the obvious, which is lost in most arguments. Like humanity, the best way to know them is by their fruits. This is still early in the argument, and this is simple part of the premise as to how we may know the 'Source' IF a 'Source' exists.

Part of the problem with this argument is that many fundimentalist Christians and Moslems reject the nature of existence as science understands existence. The reason is that this witness does not confirm the ancient Biblical worldview, and in reality falsifies this worldview and the ancient God or Gods of the Bible.

[freelight]

So what is the argument for the Source without going in a circle? I see mindless Existence as the Source. Could your Source be limited rather than omnipotent?

'Mindless Existence' is a concept that lacks intelligence. As asked before, can you prove that Existence is mindless?(obviously absurd). Can you prove that Mind came into being at some point in time? (evidence please).

Also as noted before,...my concept of the I AM is not necessarily 'anthropomorphic' except that it is evidently thru this 'being' and 'consciousness' (this template of individual existence) that 'I AM' that I am conscious/aware of the 'Source and Actuality' of my Being. The Name 'I AM' is the one God gave to Moses, 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' ( 'I AM/ I Will Be' ) - It denotes Self-Existence and Creative/motive Intelligence.....and implies an Existence that is eternal/infinite/everlasting, as is classically ascribed to Deity.


As one abides in the Mind that Is and as the Mind that Is...the I AM Consciousness......this consciousness is ever-being. Creation, all space/time/relativity....all phenomenal, conditional existence is ever appearing and disappearing within this Universal Consciousness. While mind and matter co-exist within an interacting matrix.....I place Mind as preeminent and the consciousness before, behind and beyond all matter-ial existence. The Space wherein all existence unfolds is ever witnessed by Mind.

Consciousness is intrinsic to Existence and innate within Being....as realized by the ' I AM' Awareness,....Infinite Intelligence. An existence existing apart from Mind/Consciousness is an existence that could not exist - how would one come to know of such an existence apart from speculation if Mind didnt exist to know it?

The Reality of God as "Mind" or Consciousness is Self-evident within consciousness ItSelf....and is not 'circular' but ACTUAL, here and NOW. This Reality of Mind pervades the totality of Existence proved by actually existing.


'Mindless Existence' is a concept that lacks intelligence.





paul

[freelight]

Yes, anthropomorphism prevalent in Theistic beliefs do assume a 'guiding intelligence' as the basis of theism, but his view is not necessary in a nature of a 'Source' if it exists.

The Biblical God need not be the God in question. It is my assumption that the many various divergent views of a god or multiple gods, are simply the various human views of God and not the nature of a 'Source' that I would present an argument for. The only thing I could conclude is that these different views may in some way reflect some attirbutes of a 'Source'.

The nature of existence, as we primarilly understand it through science would only be capable of determining the attributes of existence and would be neutral for the most part in any argument for or against the existence of a 'Source' some call God. If the existence we experience is the creation of a 'Source', than the nature of this existence is our best witness as to the nature of this 'Source'.

Most theists recognize God as the Original Source of all that exists and the only Ground of Being wherein all phenomenal life, conditional existence arises and has its being. My very being has a source, an origin, a supporting intelligence, a sentient reality. I contact 'God'....my source of Being within my own Being. I have a mind or active consciousness...which exists due to the very nature/existence of a Universal Mind. Indeed,....the nature of this Existence is Self-Consciousness revealed in the 'I AM' Awareness. I AM BEING.
This Truth or Actuality is Self-evident and ultimately Self-realized.




paul

[freelight]

No, this is just a statement of the obvious, which is lost in most arguments. Like humanity, the best way to know them is by their fruits. This is still early in the argument, and this is simple part of the premise as to how we may know the 'Source' IF a 'Source' exists.

Being is its own Source.







paul

[Griggsy]

Being is its own Source.







paul

You still only question beg like Alvin Platinga,W e have no evidence that mind ever came into existence until later in evolution .This would be the same throughout the universe.Maybe watts r1 could better show that.Anyway ,are you pantheistic? F,or the sake of argument ,does your Source want worship ? If so why ,as I find that narcissistic and below the dignity of such. Existence itself doesn't show any mind behind it as I showed.Natural selection shows no purpose.It is anti-teleological. Teleoligy presumes an end result whereas causality has no end: we are not the end result of a mind wanting us, but the result of millons of years of evolution without forethought.Teleology presumes the effect before the cause , thus the reverse of what we find.

[shunyadragon]

You still only question beg like Alvin Platinga,W e have no evidence that mind ever came into existence until later in evolution .This would be the same throughout the universe.Maybe watts r1 could better show that.Anyway ,are you pantheistic? F,or the sake of argument ,does your Source want worship ? If so why ,as I find that narcissistic and below the dignity of such. Existence itself doesn't show any mind behind it as I showed.Natural selection shows no purpose.It is anti-teleological. Teleoligy presumes an end result whereas causality has no end: we are not the end result of a mind wanting us, but the result of millons of years of evolution without forethought.Teleology presumes the effect before the cause , thus the reverse of what we find.

Hanging your argument on very human anthropomorphic words like 'mind' to describe a potential 'Source' where the witness of nature is 'no-mind', is projecting our own image into a void where there is none. Beyond our own experience in our 'Mind' and the animal kingdom around us the witness is a very natural existence that at best we are a part of a very insignificant dust bunny in the vasteness of one or more universes. At best our 'mind' may reflect the attributes of a 'Source' in the greater framework of the nature of existence.