God's Mind

@franc,

franc wrote:

There is no possible way to demonstrate that there is no god.

This was my point. Of course, that we are not able to demonstrate His existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether we can or cannot know of it.

Quote:

The personal language argument means that god's mind can be anything, and that another mind can never truly be known.

Ah, but who says God's is another mind? Perhaps God's mind is the substrate of all minds, as Bradley and Royce argue.

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

This was my point. Of course, that we are not able to demonstrate His existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether we can or cannot know of it.

The existence of god is demonstrable, in the event that god is similar enough to us to communicate his existence. If we are truly made in god's image, that is, if there is a personal god, then he would be able to prove that he existed.

Whoever wrote:

Ah, but who says God's is another mind? Perhaps God's mind is the substrate of all minds, as Bradley and Royce argue.

Could you elaborate on this?

@franc,

Whoever: I also like the idea that everyone is the same mind, or consciousness, God. Which, in it's purest form is infinitely intelligent and creative. It may seem confusing at first, but if you think of a spiritual timeline that runs indepently of the material one, it does make a lot of sense. We are all just one consciousness experiencing one life at a time, so you're a future or past life or me. A good explanation of everything.

This is how people are able to predict the future as well, because they have lived in the future, and remembered. Wink

Vampires are a good analogy for this, they are the ones who have realized that they must live forever in an evil world, and they themselves will do evil things. Always with a sense of melancholy inside, and compassion. Contrasts, beauty, darkness, enlightenment. I really can't explain it, like I like to say, our language is very limited... My golden rule is, "treat everyone like they are a future life of yourself" Wink

@Stormalv,

Stormalv wrote:

Whoever: I also like the idea that everyone is the same mind, or consciousness, God. Which, in it's purest form is infinitely intelligent and creative. It may seem confusing at first, but if you think of a spiritual timeline that runs indepently of the material one, it does make a lot of sense. We are all just one consciousness experiencing one life at a time, so you're a future or past life or me. A good explanation of everything.

This is how people are able to predict the future as well, because they have lived in the future, and remembered.

Vampires are a good analogy for this, they are the ones who have realized that they must live forever in an evil world, and they themselves will do evil things. Always with a sense of melancholy inside, and compassion. Contrasts, beauty, darkness, enlightenment. I really can't explain it, like I like to say, our language is very limited... My golden rule is, "treat everyone like they are a future life of yourself"

Once again you have evovled god to answer his critics..

@franc,

Franc - I didn't mean to suggest that it is not possible to know of God's existence or non-existence, just that it cannot be demonstrated. Still, I suppose you're right, if He exists in any of His common anthropomorphic forms then He ought to be able to demonstrate that he does.

I'll elaborate on my remark about atheistic religions as requested. For a certain versions of absolute idealism, neutral monism, relative phenomenalism and metaphysical neutralism the psychophysical universe (the world of mental and corporeal phenomena) would reduce to a spiritual unity, and this is often equated closely with a cosmic mind. Hegel is closely associated with this view, and I would say also Parmenides, Heraclitus, Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer and Erwin Schroedinger to name but a few.

Francis Bradley, for another well known example, favours absolute idealism (not to be confused with Berkeley's theistic idealism), and argues that the logical incoherence of our common notions of time (among other things) implies that all events are eternally present in an overarching mind. This is the 'block' universe so disliked by William James, but it doesn't seem all that far from his own view. For this view our own seemingly discrete minds would be rooted in and inseperable from this universal mind.

Thus mysticism, as a practice, is the attempt to dig deep within oneself to realise this truth, if such it be, and this explains why mysticism is often characterised as the 'art of union with reality.' Accordingly, we have the search for the unus mundus of the Alchemists, the 'chemical wedding' of the Rosicrucians, the 'enlightenment' of the Buddhists and so forth, and the instruction of the Oracle at Delphi to 'Know Thyself.'

People who hold this view as a speculation, it should be noted, may or may not be theists, and among those who seem to have succeeded in achieving the realisation of the universe as a unity the term 'God' is not often used to describe the ultimate phenomenon. Bradley tells us that the Absolute is not God, and I recently read an article by a Sufi (Islamic mystic) scholar arguing rigorously and at length that 'Al-Lah' (The One) is not God. It is for this view that the Church of Rome wanted nothing to do with Meister Eckhart and his like, and the Sufi sage Al-hallaj was only one of many Christians and Muslims martyred for expressing it.

Mysticism, therefore, is not the claim that everything exists in God's mind, although this would be a reasonable approximation to the truth.

Stromalv's idea of a spiritual timeline that runs indepently of the material one is relevant here, although it's not one I'd go along with, or only in a very particular way. For the Christian mystic the cross is seen as a sign with a precise meaning. Its horizontal arm would represent the world in time, the passing of time, the life lived in time, while the vertical arm would be the timeless experience of unity which would be eternally orthogonal to it, co-existent and accessible to us all, while the crucified Jesus would represent Everyman, at least in potential, for we would each be in immediate contact with both of these aspects of reality and thus stand perpetually at the crossroads, did we but know it.

The early Christians tended to take this view but it disappeared with the establishment of the later Roman literalist dogma and the violent purge of the gnostics under Bishop Iraneus. It re-emerged in Christianity with the discovery of the texts of the Nag Hammadi Library in the 1950's.

Whoever

@alex717,

alex717 wrote:

Does anyone here believe that perhaps the universe is purely within God's (for lack of a better word) mind? Perhaps the universe is simply a impermanent thought of his which he continues in order to simulate growth in his souls (us)? In order for us to learn lessons that only can be learned from being mortal? Such as lessons that include not just human physical or mental stimulus but also acts of evil that we inflict or can have inflicted on us? This is pertaining from the belief that in God's actual reality there can be no evil.

NOT THAT SIMPLE: as the product of GOD's mind we shouldn't have to learn, we must already KNOW, we therefore choose to UNLEARN, and therein lies the complexity of the COSMOS: why do we so CHOOSE?

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

NOT THAT SIMPLE: as the product of GOD's mind we shouldn't have to learn, we must already KNOW, we therefore choose to UNLEARN, and therein lies the complexity of the COSMOS: why do we so CHOOSE?

I don't think it is so much we "unlearn", it's life is just overwhelming to the point it takes precedent as we strive to exist, when the is no such thing as NON-EXISTENCE. IMO. We didn't choose, we had no choice. We knew of no other existence.

That is what life is. To learn as we go. We are dynamic. Static doesn't work with us. Forward momentum is what we are all about. God's mind knows "we"; we don't know God. The expression of sentience is what is new and there is no way we could have known what that expression (of God) would entail. Neither would God. We are all one and traveling together into tomorrow. I am not convinced the "future" exists as far as we are concerned. It becomes the "now" once we step into it. Perhaps it does exist in "another dimension". Not so much a future that "exists", but one that "could be created" by influencing the mind of man. If it does, I don't think it is a good thing. Perhaps there are "forces" capable of "creating" a future manipulating the mind and actions of man. I don't have a clue. But there is much we "don't" know, but I feel this would explain "mental illness", and to some extent "evil". I think that would be horrific if we tapped into that, if it does "exit". Again, me thinking out loud. For your consideration.
William

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

NOT THAT SIMPLE: as the product of GOD's mind we shouldn't have to learn, we must already KNOW, we therefore choose to UNLEARN, and therein lies the complexity of the COSMOS: why do we so CHOOSE?

Perhaps to know the answer to this question we must each remember for ourselves.

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

NOT THAT SIMPLE: as the product of GOD's mind we shouldn't have to learn, we must already KNOW, we therefore choose to UNLEARN, and therein lies the complexity of the COSMOS: why do we so CHOOSE?

Well this is pertaining to if we are a type of thought, like we would make something, he made us with capabilities.

@alex717,

Well this is pertaining to if we are a type of thought, like we would make something, he made us with capabilities...Is a thought MADE?...assuredly the MIND of GOD...the THOUGHT of the MIND of GOD...are instantaneous...A THOUGHT of GOD with capabilities?...within each thought a trillion trillion trillion etc ...layers of other and hidden thought...the THOUGHT and GOD always existed, and within that THOUGHT all other possible thoughts...we are an inner thought...the outer thoughts cover us...let us strike out to knowledge...and waylay our chosen ignorance...

@alex717,

how about, your failure in communicating basic fundamental theory baffles me

@alex717,

how about, your failure in communicating basic fundamental theory baffles me...WHO ARE YOU ADDRESSING?

@alex717,

god is similar enough to us to communicate his existence...'If HORSES' had GODS', then they would mould them in the form of HORSES'...Zenophanes...

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

Well this is pertaining to if we are a type of thought, like we would make something, he made us with capabilities...Is a thought MADE?...assuredly the MIND of GOD...the THOUGHT of the MIND of GOD...are instantaneous...A THOUGHT of GOD with capabilities?...within each thought a trillion trillion trillion etc ...layers of other and hidden thought...the THOUGHT and GOD always existed, and within that THOUGHT all other possible thoughts...we are an inner thought...the outer thoughts cover us...let us strike out to knowledge...and waylay our chosen ignorance...

Then let me explain it to you sir: Let us consider LIGHT YEAR ONE, the rays of Light have spread out evenly into open space, and equally in all directions, and they are would be coming to be, thus they are the THINKING mind of GOD: the ALL-THINKING, but step back, and what do we see, but and that they have formed a perfect CIRCLE, and which encommpasses them, this perfect CIRCLE is ONE, and it is the ALL-THOUGHT, it is would be comes to be, thus they are the THOUGHT mind of God. The ALL-THINKING resides within the ALL-THOUGHT...this is not my imagination: THIS HAPPENED. Now what about light year BILLION, everything is dissipated...the light rays have become diffracted, and seemingly infinitely distended, opaque, and matter on the outward waves has become created and blocks them. The purity of LIGHT YEAR ONE is long gone, but now as we approach LIGHT YEAR BILLION, we recoqnise our WORLD, our COSMOS...do you understand now...Light has an inner and an outer expression, that is what we as man HAVE GOT TO COME TO UNDERSTAND...more anon...

@alex717,

So, and we've arrived at LIGHT YEAR ONE. The INDIVISIBLE POINT looks out upon its outward expression: this is the mind of GOD, and to all intents and purposes, and is moreover, the ONE TRUE PERSPECTIVE. The outer expression of the INDIVISIBLE POINT, and as LIGHT YEAR ONE, is therefore the OBJECT of the INDIVISIBLE POINT, and but, and this but is important: is not OBJECTIVE to itself. The MIND of GOD sees everything as it should be: the Each or Every Part residing within the Whole. The outward expression is not conscious of itself: it never can be, in other words, it can never get behind itself, and see what the MIND of GOD sees. Everything in the LIGHT YEAR ONE is internalised potential, as it moves through SPACE it will start to objectify itself, but not as part to Whole, rather the inverse, as Whole to Part, in other words the Passive Whole will reside within the Active Each or Every Part. The consciousness expressed resides always on the outer fringes of the expanding Whole, and is moreover a nominal perspective, and not a TRUE perspective, not, that is, the perspective of the Mind of GOD, but sees everything on the inverse, and outwards, and not behind. The COSMOS ****ways, in other words. Mind and Matter are but two sides to the one coin, always existing interrelatedly. LIGHT YEAR ONE contains within itself the Platonic IDEAS for everything, and starts to realise them: such is the perfection of the expression, the expression of the perfection of LIGHT YEAR ONE. Light is but a SEED POD, and starts to impregnate the COSMOS as an external expression, that's where we come in. We are one of its expressions, but we can never look back, alas, am I getting through, hows that for fundamental THEORY...more anon...

@alex717,

NOW YOU MAY ASK: whence did I derive the notion of the Platonic Forms within the LIGHT YEAR ONE, and I shall reply; it is subjective, this LIGHT YEAR ONE, and I have stood back, and what did I see: the parameters of all FORMS, the straight line and the circle, and all is thus BORN, all FORMS, and thereby discovered the said notion, and by INDUCTION...

@alex717,

LIGHT YEAR ONE: the each or every part resides within the WHOLE and the WHOLE resides without the each or every part...LIGHT YEAR MANY: the whole resides within the EACH OR EVERY PART and the EACH OR EVERY PART resides without the whole...we can now discover the MIND OF GOD...LIGHT YEAR ONE AND LIGHT YEAR MANY{synthesis of the INDIVISIBLE POINT}: the WHOLE resides within and without the whole, and the EACH OR EVERY PART resides within and without the each or every part...therefore and by induction, the INDIVISIBLE POINT{the MIND OF GOD] speaks thus: that, the WHOLE should reside within and without, the whole, and that, the EACH OR EVERY PART, should reside within and without, the each or every part, and that, the EACH OR EVERY PART, should reside within and without, the whole, and that, the WHOLE should reside within and without, the each or every part. The PERFECT SYNCRETISATION: such is the MIND OF GOD...

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus,

I must confess to some difficulty in understanding your posts. Might I suggest a few more paragraphs, a few less capital letters and perhaps a complete sentence or two? I sense your fine thoughts might be better served a bit more clearly delineated.

Thanks, and good luck!

@alex717,

HOW DIFFICULT CAN IT BE: to explain the MIND of GOD. We take a hypothetical LIGHT YEAR ONE{it did happen}, the rest, and no matter how many they are, are a hypothetical LIGHT YEAR MANY{it is still happening}, we know that the cosmos does not stay still on its outward journey, but we can hypothesise its various stages. Once we establish that the each or every part resides within the whole as an inner expression of light, and once we establish that the whole resides within the each or every part as an outer expresssion of light, then by induction we can discover the primary syncretisation that must exist as the indivisible point, and that therefore this indivisible point expresses, the MIND of GOD. I'm under the impression that I'm speaking English, perhaps I'm wrong...this perfect syncretisation is mentioned above...

@alex717,

It is English, Scotty, but not as we know it. I suspect that you may be saying something very interesting, but it is not easy to figure out what it is.

For example - "We take a hypothetical LIGHT YEAR ONE{it did happen}, the rest, and no matter how many they are, are a hypothetical LIGHT YEAR MANY{it is still happening},..." I don't know what this means.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know