If I may jump in, Ogden, what does it mean for you to say "I exist"? Do YOU exist if you are in a vegetative state? Or is it only when you are conscious that you exist? What is non-existence for you?

I have no idea if "I" would still exist in a vegitative state, thats a good question. I guess I would NOT, because I believe that what I am is inextricably tied to my consciousness.

to me existence is the connection between mind body and spirit and awareness. Only when all four are present and in unison can existence come about. There is obviously more to it that this but that is the bear minimum for human existence

I'm not sure I know what you mean by spirit. What is sprit?

spirit is the projection of the soul of and individual it is their essence . the part that you feel when you interact with them.

That's the thing, though. I agree with you; there was a time when "I" did not exist, and some time soon "I" will not longer exist. If the mind is basically what we are, and the mind is a function of the physical brain, then there is no doubt that we have not always existed, and that we will soon no longer exist. Ashes to ashes, you know?



But what is the difference between mind and body? And isn't awareness a result of the mind?



What, then, is the soul? If I interact with someone, the only things I feel are physical, as far as I can tell. My interaction is sensory, and sensory processes are physical.

yes but without it we do not exist though our minds are still intact its like when you're spaced out on a wall is that really existence or is that just being

the soul is physical and spiritual it is a manifestation of consciousness

Is it possible that God is a manifestation of the consciousness?

God is determinism.

HMmMm... tuff question... and it seem's like there still hasnt been an anwser that has quelched man's thirst and lust for such and answer over such a thing...

Well logic can answer this.. first off to know what it would be, you must find what it would not be, for us to be how we are at this present state.

The world will never get over this question, for they ask other's for the answer when truly they, them self are the answer to there own question, yet they tend to forget that in this physical world that are flesh are bound in, the only things we need for self presaverance of are selfs and other's are
1.Food/energey
2.Water
3.Air
4.Shelter
5.Entertainment
6.Love/reproduction
7.The protection pureity of the 1-6 need's, want's, and desire's for presaverance of life.
8. The seeking, lust, desire, and need for all 1-7

Humanity can be placed within such, that of which bind's us all, yet were would be the understanding of the question? Entertainment? that is a big section wich cover's alot of thing's...

Yet if you know where "god" is, then you know what "god" is and what thing's make up "god" yet first you must define what such mean's to you, for i can say what that word mean's to me, and prove to my self that such has existance within our world...yet not all of the world would except my point of view and perception of such...

All thing's are one with one another, which co-inside with all madder and all thought within one collective entitie body that is all madder and is all thought...
For all things to be one with one another, one must have one to co-inside with.

Hence the proof of such and existance would be are existance and the thing's that we can and cannot do within are existance within a single or any given point of perceptable time.

But this concept i undestand correctly, for i have defined why it must be as I stated, for this to be as they are now, yet other's no matter how much word's or thing's that are shown to there eye's and mind's will ever except such for the answer for what they seek....

So people should stop asking the question's(what is god, who is god, where is god, and so meany other question's of such) to other people... for the answer's other people give them, will never be as great or forfilling as the answer they create for themself.. there are infinit point's of perception of finite point's of view, hence there should be infinit answer's to such a question, yet only a hand full will waste your time with you injoying it along the way and quelch your thirst for such a lust of an answer.

Entertainment is the best, yet people tend to overthink thing's and forget that "god" is just a word that man had created for the mean's of communication to other's about a concept. So it will allways be like asking, what's love, or what's life, it will allways end up with the same idea's and concept's yet put into difrent word's that pass the time , and that's just fine

Is it possible that God is a manifestation of the consciousness?

yes that is the vedic theroy of brahman so you know

in my opinion god is the essence of perfection and that is in everyone and everything

The purport of this statement of whether God had done a dominant thing can be found everywhere in the Bible,God is the Almighty who is apparently non-existent,and which its love reverberated around the world.

"God" is a word...

... any definition passed that drop-kicks us into a sea of relativity, individual-perceptions and conflicts-in-meaning.

Haven't the same things been said even about words? Looks like we're stuck in that sea!

Surely!

... but this word is particularly-pervasive and excels in its number of meanings/interpretations.

Well, you won't get an argument from me there! "God" has to be one of the most ambiguous words in the English language... So if people are going to discuss "God", I think one of the first things they need to do is be clear on what the other person means by the word. So I guess personally I'd see it opposite from your post a bit ago... To not define "God" beyond just being a word is to get lost in a sea of near meaningless relativity. Sure we're still stuck with differing perspectives and such (which is much of what human interaction is about), but at least we'll be communicating on a higher level.

Different takes I guess.

GOD cannot be GOD to GOD : otherwise he would be distinct from himself...God cannot therefore know himself as subject or object. Therein lies the solution. That GOD must be the synthesis of subject and object. An unknowable state for us. But a state of immediate knowledge as far as an indistinct GOD would be concerned...