williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/28/85)
> Why is that trouble? If God is not part of the universe, > what prevents Him from acting, affecting, or manifesting in the > universe? Further, what prevents God from doing whatever He > wishes to do? You assume a " creator ", along with some form of " substance ". A " GOD " would reside in a hierarchically higher dimensional level than our limited dimensions. However, there is a limit to the hierarchy, and it is not clear that we exist in a lower one, that is, it is possible that we ARE the highest level in this particular system. > Both "universe" and "nature" are human concepts. If God > appeared, then the term "nature" might be expanded to include > God. How we use the term "nature" might not affect God > Himself. True, they are human " concepts ", but hopefully they represent reality to a reasonable degree of accuracy. > I do not understand how God's creating nature and the > universe prevents Him from entering the universe or nature. If > I build a house, does that mean I can't enter it or change it? Assuming of course that there is a creator ( who simply *IS* ), I suppose this is possible, but what if we simply *ARE* ? > But Science (yes I know this is an abstraction and not a > "real" entity) is flexible enough to extend the limits of the > term "nature". OR, come up with more accurate and descriptive terms. > See above re: "nature". Why must the existence of > something outside "nature" not be knowable? OK, I'll bite. Why? Just because you can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch it doesn't mean it's unknowable? > I wonder why the following would not be possible: > o Nature being one with God Nature = GOD, GOD = Nature? This lacks the " diviness " you speak of. > o Nature being part of God, and part of God being > knowable If there was a higher level of reality, then, needless to say, we would not know what would exist there. > o God being part of nature Oh, this has happened. Most importantly, GOD is a part of human nature. > o God appearing differently to each individual A la hallucination, perhaps? > (Please - no answers based exclusively on faith. You are > absolutely right.) The main point of all of this typing is that > our logic has no bearing on what God is like. Perhaps GOD affects what our logic ( or illogic ) is like. > Perhaps there's more than one way to be Divine. But it usually starts with some kind of claim. GOD, and divine works have been for the most part a huge wastebasket for disposing unsolved mysteries. Most religions see no need to conduct investigations towards reality, because they feel that the essence of the universe is contained in a book. No one said that uncertainty was a comfortable existence, however, it's a lot more accurate, and is perhaps the easiest to live with. I have been hit repeatedly with the spiritual wisdom = scriptural knowledge crap, and I think anyone that thinks the universe can be described in a book needs treatment. You see, you are capable of believing just about anything, and what makes it possible for you to believe anything for any length of time is your ability to filter out contrary observations. If a benevolent GOD truly does exist, I am not convinced that there exists a single person on the face of the earth that will recognize it. We are not here to discuss everything that is possible, we can only discuss the things that are probable. We only discuss what is possible when one of us steps out of line and makes huge claims that cannot be proved OR demonstrated in any way. I am sure that alot of " divine " phenomena can be explained through psychology, in a way that doesn't leave wild gaping inconsistencies. John Williams < Did God create Man, or did Man create God >
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (06/02/85)
> > Why is that trouble? If God is not part of the universe, > > what prevents Him from acting, affecting, or manifesting in the > > universe? Further, what prevents God from doing whatever He > > wishes to do? > > You assume a " creator ", along with some form of " > substance ". A " GOD " would reside in a hierarchically higher > dimensional level than our limited dimensions. However, there is > a limit to the hierarchy, and it is not clear that we exist in a > lower one, that is, it is possible that we ARE the highest level > in this particular system. There is an alternative here that I don't see anyone else discussing. There is such a thing as un-dimentional, not zero dimentional (a point), or infinitely dimentional, but a mode of existance in which the concept is meaningless. As an example, look at mass. When I say that a force has no mass, am I really saying that the mass is zero? Maybe Gd exists in a non-dimentional non-universe. How many dimentions do emotions have? BTW, why must there be a finite hierarchy? Why must there be "substance"? What kind of substance, premordial, or Gd's? I don't understand what you mean, or why this statement nessecitates the existence of either. -- Micha Berger 2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406 NY, NY 10033 (212) 781-0756 {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger
davido@mmintl.UUCP (David Ornstein) (06/04/85)
In Article: <1723@aecom.UUCP>, berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) writes: >> > Why is that trouble? If God is not part of the universe, >> > what prevents Him from acting, affecting, or manifesting in the >> > universe? Further, what prevents God from doing whatever He >> > wishes to do? >> >> You assume a " creator ", along with some form of " >> substance ". A " GOD " would reside in a hierarchically higher >> dimensional level than our limited dimensions. However, there is >> a limit to the hierarchy, and it is not clear that we exist in a >> lower one, that is, it is possible that we ARE the highest level >> in this particular system. > >There is an alternative here that I don't see anyone else discussing. >There is such a thing as un-dimentional, not zero dimentional (a point), >or infinitely dimentional, but a mode of existance in which the concept >is meaningless. As an example, look at mass. When I say that a force >has no mass, am I really saying that the mass is zero? Maybe Gd exists >in a non-dimentional non-universe. How many dimentions do emotions have? > . > . > . >Micha Berger >2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406 NY, NY 10033 (212) 781-0756 >{philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger I tend to believe that in these cases, it is language, perception and interpretation that make the difference. I believe that emotion has as much "right" to be dimensional as does space or time. It seems to me that it is all a question of subjective assignment. If I choose to say that emotion is a 9 dimensional form (degrees of some quantities that I choose to call: love, want, lust, interest, help_thy_neighborness, etc.) who is to say that it is not. Emotion (and all other things that we choose to isolate from each other) are what they are. Each person has a subjective (and equally "correct") way of measuring and analyzing these things. I live my life by communicating with other people. The method I use (consciously) is to try and quess what various words mean to the person I am speaking to. Then I construct my sentence. It seems obvious to me that all these concepts are as real as anything else we choose to evaluate in isolation. Davido How'd I do? -- ****************************************************************************** * David Ornstein Out of the way, you swine! * * A computer scientist is coming! * * U.S. Snail: * * Multimate International Corp. --- STANDARD DISCLAIMER --- * * 52 Oakland Avenue * * East Hartford, CT. 06108 * * UUCP: * * ...!seismo!utah-cs!utah-gr!pwa-b!mmintl!davido * ******************************************************************************