God and existence are identical.

Can't do it concisely, because it's not a matter of soundbites, slogans or mêmes.

I considered the God-is-All idea for quite a few years.

If matter and energy were discovered to have some form of consciousness, then yes, one could say that matter and consciousness are all one.
Vedantists (the inner esoteric core of Hinduism) assert this idea and consider consciousness to be God.
Historically, that idea has existed since at least the earliest of the Vedas, around 3,000 years, earlier if we count verbal transmission of memorised chants. The name they give it is Atman. The English translation, "God", doesn't correspond precisely to the Sanskrit meaning. There is no exact equivalent.
Vedantists believe matter arose out of consciousness due to it's wish to experience itself.

In physics, we now know that all is either potential or kinetic energy existing in time and space.
We also know that what we call matter (or potential energy) occupies only infinitesimal space, most of space being empty.
The scales of atoms and subatomic particles are so exponentially small we can only perceive them via instruments created to be far more powerful than our senses, and able to measure the evidence.

So far, no one has been able to measure or quantify consciousness.

The nearest equivalent is measuring the electrical signals and activity in the brain. The electrical wavelengths correspond accurately with:
alpha - profound focus/ 'the zone' - meditation, concentration, discovery, creativity;
beta - normal waking awareness;
gamma - sleep;
or theta - coma
Within each of these states is a variable spectrum.

Observing this, it can be tempting to define consciousness as the subjective result of multiple sequences of miniscule bio-electrical and bio-chemical flows down synapses.
If this view of consciousness turned out to be accurate, then all consciousness, including that of animals, would be the result of the physical processes of evolution.
In other words, the reverse of what Hindus and Vedantists believe.
I am more inclined to accept this physical view of things,
but I freely acknowledge that it may be a very long time before we can prove it.

However, if it did turn out that consciousness was the origin of the physical world, I would not wish to call it God.
The word God denotes intentional power and knowledge. I see no evidence for this.
The universe on its cosmic scale does not care
about the tiny blip of life that evolves and dies on this remote planet
on an outer arm of a vast galaxy,
a galaxy which is only one of countless billions,
existing for a time that will be over in what is,
in universal time,
less than a hiccup.

We are so utterly absorbed in our human existences that we forget how insignificant we are in the larger picture of the cosmos.

@hartfire


You have not yet reduced your voluminous words into just 65, which concentrate on the topic of my thread here, on the topic "God and existence are identical."



Please do it, for it is impossible to detect what is the point if any you are making with so much words, the point namely relevant to the thread here, on "God and existence are identical."







?

yrger · 80-89, M
@hartfire

I am Yrger, the author of the thread, "God and existence are identical."

I really would like to read your opinion on God and existence are identical.



You have plenty of words in your post I copied and pasted below.

Supposing you are required to take an essay type examination, on the topic God and existence are identical, and you sum your write up in high definition focus of say 65 words.







hartfire

Can't do it concisely, because it's not a matter of soundbites, slogans or mêmes.

I considered the God-is-All idea for quite a few years.

If matter and energy were discovered to have some form of consciousness, then yes, one could say that matter and consciousness are all one.
Vedantists (the inner esoteric core of Hinduism) assert this idea and consider consciousness to be God.
Historically, that idea has existed since at least the earliest of the Vedas, around 3,000 years, earlier if we count verbal transmission of memorised chants. The name they give it is Atman. The English translation, "God", doesn't correspond precisely to the Sanskrit meaning. There is no exact equivalent.
Vedantists believe matter arose out of consciousness due to it's wish to experience itself.

In physics, we now know that all is either potential or kinetic energy existing in time and space.
We also know that what we call matter (or potential energy) occupies only infinitesimal space, most of space being empty.
The scales of atoms and subatomic particles are so exponentially small we can only perceive them via instruments created to be far more powerful than our senses, and able to measure the evidence.

So far, no one has been able to measure or quantify consciousness.

The nearest equivalent is measuring the electrical signals and activity in the brain. The electrical wavelengths correspond accurately with:
alpha - profound focus/ 'the zone' - meditation, concentration, discovery, creativity;
beta - normal waking awareness;
gamma - sleep;
or theta - coma
Within each of these states is a variable spectrum.

Observing this, it can be tempting to define consciousness as the subjective result of multiple sequences of miniscule bio-electrical and bio-chemical flows down synapses.
If this view of consciousness turned out to be accurate, then all consciousness, including that of animals, would be the result of the physical processes of evolution.
In other words, the reverse of what Hindus and Vedantists believe.
I am more inclined to accept this physical view of things,
but I freely acknowledge that it may be a very long time before we can prove it.

However, if it did turn out that consciousness was the origin of the physical world, I would not wish to call it God.
The word God denotes intentional power and knowledge. I see no evidence for this.
The universe on its cosmic scale does not care
about the tiny blip of life that evolves and dies on this remote planet
on an outer arm of a vast galaxy,
a galaxy which is only one of countless billions,
existing for a time that will be over in what is,
in universal time,
less than a hiccup.

We are so utterly absorbed in our human existences that we forget how insignificant we are in the larger picture of the cosmos.

@Abstraction

You tell me:
But as a Christian I don't follow this belief that assumes God needed 'stuff' to work with as if He lacked capability to create out of nothing. Christian belief is that God created ex nihilo, from nothing, not from himself.

So, you are into belief, but for your information I am into knowledge not belief.

According to your belief, God can and does create something from nothingness.

No wonder, you need to believe in ex nihilo, because it is against reason and intelligence that God can create and does create something using His own substance as the 'stuff' with and by and from to produce something - that is what I know from the faculty of reason and intelligence that God Himself endows man with.

That is indeed the critical difference between you and me, you are into belief and I am into facts and truths.



Now, this is funny from your part that you are invoking science specifically physics to prove that your belief in ex nihilo is founded on a scientific fact and truth, whereas scientists themselves don't go for ex nihilo, but for ex particulo (from particle).

"All matter is made of particles that are simply excitations of energy within the field." -Abstraction


Christians are into giving God more credit than He deserves, namely, that He can create something from nothing - whereas according to the reason and intelligence God Himself endows man with, even God cannot create anything at all that is created by Him with merely using nothingness.

That is an absurdity that God creates something using nothingness as the 'stuff' - just directly unlike the baker who uses flour to produce bread.

You Christians might as well just believe that God is nothingness that can create something like us humans, that would be the nth credit to God Which is identical to literally nothingness. What an nth degree of absurdity!



Let you read in the Bible that we humans live and move and have our being in God (Acts 17:28), literally we are part and parcel of the God substance.









Abstraction · 61-69, M
@yrger In fact I did. Didn't you see my response?
I object only to this:
14. But everything that is not God Himself nonetheless is made by God with and from Himself as the 'stuff' He uses to produce everything else

It is one logical possibility and it's quite a reasonable proposition. This view that you hold is panentheism and is similar to pantheism.
But as a Christian I don't follow this belief that assumes God needed 'stuff' to work with as if He lacked capability to create out of nothing. Christian belief is that God created ex niholo, from nothing, not from himself. When you look at physics it seems more apparent. The material universe is just excitations of a series of fundamental fields that are held in balance. All energy is 'vibration' within the fields. All matter is made of particles that are simply excitations of energy within the field. Nothing 'solid'. If those fields such as the Higgs field changed its value only slightly the entire physical universe would disappear immediately and it would be just energy.
Therefore God and existence are not identical in the Christian worldview. God is both imminent (near) and transcendent (beyond) the universe. This view is theism. Deism is the view God created the universe and doesn't have any continued involvement.

if god and existence are identical then why do we need to label it god?

existence is a fine enough label on it's own without tying it to a god label that carries with it all the extra baggage.

@yrger
In English the word consciousness means:
the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
2. a person's awareness or perception of something.

It could thus be said that consciousness is the ability to sense, feel, and experience needs and aversions, pleasure, discomfort, pain and suffering.

In my view, this applies just as much to animals as well.
I hope one day the dictionaries will change the wording of the definition to reflect that reality.
This week, a law was passed in the UK which acknowledges that animals are sentient (conscious). It is a first in the world, and it has huge implications for legal recognition of how humans treat and exploit animals.

There is debate about whether animals are capable of having self-consciousness in the sense of an awareness of selfhood and their individuality. The test applied is whether an animal, on seeing its image in a mirror, realises they are seeing themself and not another animal like themselves; the response is judged by how they respond to the image.
I think that's more a test of a certain type of intelligence, not a valid test of the sense of selfhood. The feeling of being oneself is internal and subjective. A child knows itself long before it first sees itself in a mirror.

I feel certain that most vertebrates have self-awareness. Anyone who has lived closely with animals knows that they respond with an awareness of the individuality, social positions and unique personalities of the other animals (their own species and others) around them in their environment. Any of us who have lived with dogs, cats, horses or other domestic animals has experienced this. Zookeepers see it in the wild animals they care for. Zoologists and gamekeepers see it in the behaviours of animals in the wild.
Each dolphin has a particular sound she makes to identify herself, and each knows and responds to the particular identifying sound (name) of each member of the pod.

We cannot, at this stage, prove consciousness in plants, much less self-awareness. But that might one day happen.

We certainly cannot see evidence of consciousness in inanimate matter.
It might be there at some miniscule level, as tiny as a single nanometer or even smaller. But if so, it doesn't register with us in any way that makes a difference to our lives or ethics.

If it were true that everything in existence is conscious, then we would have to ask is matter capable of suffering?
If it was, we would be wiser to kill ourselves this instant so as to cease causing suffering to matter in the ways we use it - presumably against its will.
Doesn't that seem somehow absurd?
If so, why is it absurd?
How do you define consciousness, yrger?

[@everyhuman]


This is the way I Yrger the theist come to know God exists:

1. I know I and fellow humans exist.
2. We exist due to our parents bringing us into existence.
3. They exist due to their parents bringing them into existence.
4. There was a time when there were no humans.
5. There was a time when there were no animals.
6. There was time when there were no living entities.
7. There was a time when there were no material things.
8. There was a status once in which status there was neither time nor space.
9. Now I ask myself, in that status in which there was neither time nor space, is that status bereft of existence i.e. reality altogether?
10. There is no such status in which there is no existence i.e. reality at all.
11. Because if such a status ever be, then it is the status of completely nothingness.
12. But I now exist and I am thinking in my mind about everything in this list.
13. So I conclude irrefutably that God exists as the permanent self-existent reality creator and operator of everything that is not Himself.
14. But everything that is not God Himself nonetheless is made by God with and from Himself as the 'stuff' He uses to produce everything else.
15. So, now I coming out of my mind into the concrete reality world that is outside my mind, I kinow there exists God as the permanent self-existent reality that is the origin of everything else that is not God Himself.


Let me read from you my fellow humans your objections (one objection from each human) against my exposition, in this my thread on "God and existence are identical."

@hartfire


What about the existence of the person in transient unconsciousness, is he temporarily not existing?

For example, a person owing to overly long period lasting many many hours of un-interrupted mental work, but he keeps by will power to stay conscious, then suddenly his weariness overtakes him while he was sitting on his chair at his working desk, and he lapses on his chair at his desk unconscious in deep dreamless sleep. When he wakes up he looks at his wrist watch and at the calendar on the wall, he realizes that he was unconscius for over a day and a half.

I would consider that person to have ceased in existence as a human for the period of a day and a half.

Now, in the case of God, He cannot lose his consciousness no matter how long He works continuously, because He is existence itself in his essence.















hartfire
@yrger No, I disagree.
A person is regarded by medicos as 'vegetating" if they are in a permanent coma, kept alive solely by artificial means and with no prospect of recovery.
Unless the machines are turned off, such a person slowly wastes away, every muscle atrophies. They are living but not sentient; not even the autonomic nervous system (which runs the body's systems to support life) are functioning. They cannot even breathe by themselves.

Other forms of unconsciousness are still a major part of life:
- the unconscious memories and associations that affect the way we respond to what we perceive,
- REM and deep sleep
- and temporary unconsciousness due to accident, excess heat or cold, or illness.
We the person wakes (or recovers) their sense of identity and ability to expect and live life continue. The desire to live has much to do with how we construct morality as a society and ethics as individuals.

While awareness and sentience is fundamental to the experience of being human, it is not unique to humans. As I've pointed out previously, we have plenty of evidence that all mammals are just as aware and feeling as we are.. In fact, it can easily be argued that they are more so because they don't have thoughts and beliefs (no neocortex for complex language and thought) to interfere with how they respond to their experiences.

Where do you get your ideas from, yrger?
Have you studied philosophy and the major religions?
If you want to get deeply into these issues you can find plenty of articles on them in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - free for anyone to access online.

The skin between my testicles and my butthole Gods.

NO. It is the very CORE of Unbelief, that which you call god is not the same as the entire physical cosmos. FOr us, "god" is a creation of the mind of man, and only that. that you would just exchange the word god for the entirety of space time is a dodge,it seems a logical fallacy, (Texas sharphooter)



intellect can be fooled, many smart person thing preposterous things..
But when you speak of reason, we must leave theology behind. Faith is belief without knowledge or in the face of contradictory evidence it is the nature of reason that there must be some kind of evidence, available to any who look to it.

ta some wouldpint to the universe and say "there! that is my evedcne for god" is only a conciet of projection
WE are actors on the world, and see all in that lens thus anything we see. must be the result of deliberate conscious action. a Rational person would be able to accept that some things happen without conscious action, without there being a mover for that action.

Shall we continue?
here is an asset that will prove useful in our conversation

https://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacy

@LordShadowfire
I wonder how long it will take him to realize everyone else has left this thread of his. Appears he doesn’t read any of the replies.

@Abstraction

I am Yrger the author of the thread, "God and existence are identical."


Hi Abstraction, suppose you take up num 1 of my list below, and tell me, Do you or don't you accept it and why.

1. I know I and fellow humans exist.









yrger · 80-89, M
@everyhuman


This is the way I Yrger the theist come to know God exists:

1. I know I and fellow humans exist.
2. We exist due to our parents bringing us into existence.
3. They exist due to their parents bringing them into existence.
4. There was a time when there were no humans.
5. There was a time when there were no animals.
6. There was time when there were no living entities.
7. There was a time when there were no material things.
8. There was a status once in which status there was neither time nor space.
9. Now I ask myself, in that status in which there was neither time nor space, is that status bereft of existence i.e. reality altogether?
10. There is no such status in which there is no existence i.e. reality at all.
11. Because if such a status ever be, then it is the status of completely nothingness.
12. But I now exist and I am thinking in my mind about everything in this list.
13. So I conclude irrefutably that God exists as the permanent self-existent reality creator and operator of everything that is not Himself.
14. But everything that is not God Himself nonetheless is made by God with and from Himself as the 'stuff' He uses to produce everything else.
15. So, now I coming out of my mind into the concrete reality world that is outside my mind, I kinow there exists God as the permanent self-existent reality that is the origin of everything else that is not God Himself.


Let me read from you my fellow humans your objections (one objection from each human) against my exposition, in this my thread on "God and existence are identical."

@hartfire

Would you agree with me that for humans and God, consciousness is identical to existence, so that when man loses his consciousness permanently, then he no longer exists.

In the case of God, His consciousness is indeed His existence, but since He is permanently existing and self-existing, God cannot lose His consciousness scil. existence. That is in a way the only thing God cannot do, commit suicide.





yrger · 80-89, M
@hartfire


What about this definition of consciousness from yours truly Yrger:
In regard to humans, consciousness is the fundamental status of man experiencing his animate existence, so that man must first be in that status before he can do any action he is accountable to himself and to fellow humans.

Consequentially to this definition of consciousness, when man should lose consciousness, like for example he gets knocked out of his mind by an opponent in the boxing sport ring, he is not existing for the time being as a human, at most he is only 'vegetating'.

So, we can call God in the Bble as the God of supernature, while we can call God as mankind can and does know Him to exist, by mankind's reason and intelligence, as the God of nature.

Just so you know where this is going.

By the way, I gave you already many times the evidence for God existing, namely, us humans like you Doc and I Yrger - we did not create ourselves, so ultimately it is God.

If you deny God to have crerated you, tell who or what created you?

The explanation why you deny even the God of nature to exist, is because you are not natural but un-natural.!


yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


You use plenty of words but all of them are useless, still you foolishly believe that with many vacuous words what is useless to explain evolution, you will make it a fact.



Okay, tell me, does evolution lead to the production of a better species all the time?

And does the previous inferior species die out?


For evolutionists, random mutation leads to natural selection.

There, you guys are invoking nature, and I tell it is the God of nature that creates nature and operates nature.

So, there is no way you fake scientists can escape from God.

@LordShadowfire

What do you have for an idea of the God you deny to exist?

It's impossible to have a productive exchange with DocSavage.


------------------


@DocSavage


You are as usual into your self-obfuscation, self-ambiguitation, and self-inanitation, in order to evade getting to the God I know to exist, from reason and intelligence.

So, what do you know about the God I know to exist, or you prefer to deny one of the gods you know to exist, in that case, please go away and don't return to this my thread, for it is about the God I know to exist and Whose essence is existence itself, so that God and His existence are identical, as my thread is all about, namely:
God and existence are identical.
Hi every human with reason and intelligence, in particular I am addressing atheists, can you accept that before anything else there is God and He is essentially existence itself, so that God and existence are identical.


-----------------------


LordShadowfire · 46-50, MVIP
@DocSavage He's projecting. He has a definitive idea of the god in which he believes, so he assumes you have a definitive idea of the god in which you don't believe. It makes no sense, but there we are.

Hi everyone, I am Yrger the author of the thread, "God and existence are identical."



"God is the permanent self-existent spirit." -Yrger

DocSavage says:
Which is the same as saying that god is an immortal, non-physical being created from nothing (wrong, God is not created).

More from DocSavage: blah blah blah blah . . .


Go away, you are a master of self-obfuscation and a master of self-ambiguitation.


Let no one sincerely seeking facts and truths take him seriously.


To ascertain that:
DocSavage is a master of self-obfuscation
and a master of self-ambiguitation,
ask him, what is his concept of God which he denies to exist.

@Abstraction


From the beginning I have noticed that you Abstraction go for authority instead of independent thinking, because you are a Christian: yours is not to think but to accept blindly what your authority tells you to believe, no questions allowed.

And everything you cannot understand it must be accepted because man cannot understand everything, due to the fact that there are mysteries which man must accept on the authority of the what(?): of the Church, of the Pope, or the articles of faith, but specially the Bible, etc etc etc - i.e. no reasoning on logic and intelligence allowed.


From my part, reason and intelligence tell me: even God cannot produce something out of nothing, using nothingness as the 'stuff' to produce something, unlike the baker who must use flour to produce bread.


That is why you Abstraction is always into recital of past thinkers as your authorities and also present thinkers, but never your very own thinking on reason and intelligence

@bugeye

You ask me:
if god and existence are identical then why do we need to label it god?

My answer:
Because God is the personal name of God, and existence is the definition of His personal name, but since God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself, then that existence is an ultimate primordial existence from which all non-permanent existence like our human existence and that of the physical/material existence of the universe depend upon for their transient existence.


Next, you say that:
Existence is a fine enough label on it's own without tying it to a god label that carries with it all the extra baggage.

My answer:
The God here is not a god, but the God here is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself.





bugeye · 26-30, F
if god and existence are identical then why do we need to label it god?

existence is a fine enough label on it's own without tying it to a god label that carries with it all the extra baggage.

Nope!

Glad your beliefs bring you comfort, but that's all they are, beliefs.

This was your original definition of god. You stated that god existed before creation. That god is spirit and non material. That he created the universe not from himself, but nothing, just as he created himself from nothing.
Background radiation from the Big Bang, is what you said was proof that the universe has a beginning, and god predates that beginning.
You also said that babies, roses , and frogs are proof of god’s existence.
You then claimed that love was proof of god, when you couldn’t explain how a [b]spirt[/b] created a physical universe.
I’ve chased you through each of your post. Been over this time and again. You keep changing the details, but I don’t let go easily.
I realize you have trouble reading too many words, but others can follow them . And they can see you for what you are.
This is from another post where you insist that god is non physical or material. And therefore cannot create matter from himself.

@Abstraction


I am certain that even God cannot use nothingness as the material to produce the universe, for that is intrinsically impossble. In other words, God essenially cannot produce something using nothing as the material, not like the baker uses flour to produce bread.

So, hi Abstraction, you are correct with accusing me of pantheism - meaning that we are made of God's substance.

For in Him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring.’ (Acts 7:28)





yrger · 80-89, M
@Abstraction

You say:
Christianity teaches that God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing.

Do you mean that God uses nothingness as the material to produce the universe, like say the baker uses flour to make bread?

Can you cite any formal doctrinal statement of Christianity's duo-millennial bibliography declaring that teaching?


@Abstraction

You say:
Christianity teaches that God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing.

@DocSavage

Do you know about this inscription on the desktop of President Truman: The Buck Stops Here?


There is the permanent self-existent God upon Whom everything at all not God Himself owes its existence.

Or you want to posit that nothingness is the source of all existence, in which case you are the essence of absurdity.






DocSavage · M
No, you said god is self existent. He was not created by any other source. No ancestors , nothing whatsoever. He’s just there. No explanation. With all the powers needed for creation, and a very long range plan. Billions of years in the making.
He’s permanent, so I would guess you believe him immortal. And he seems to have a personal interest in us.
It’s hard to pin down all the details, and be concise. The universe is pretty complicated and complex after all.
That’s why you have gods in the first place. Simple and convenient
Takes away most of the problems for people like you.

@Abstraction


The reason why I care to read from you that you concur with me on "You and I we exist," is so that you will admit that you don't need belief to realize that you and I we exist.

All you or better you and I we only need to exercise our reason and intelligence.

There is such a thing as that religious leaders abuse their followers by appealing to them to believe them i.e. their religious leaders, they religious leaders know better.

Do you Abstraction get my point?








yrger · 80-89, M
@Abstraction

Hi Abstraction, I am still waiting for your reply to my invitation for us to concur on "You and I we exist, yes or no."






yrger · 80-89, M
@Abstraction

I am Yrger the author of the present thread.

Okay, hi Abstraction, let us work together to concur on this statement: You and I we exist, yes or no.

@Abstraction


Hi Abstraction, I am still waiting for your reaction to my post, see below.







yrger · 80-89, M
@Abstraction


The reason why I care to read from you that you concur with me on "You and I we exist," is so that you will admit that you don't need belief to realize that you and I we exist.

All you or better you and I we only need to exercise our reason and intelligence.

There is such a thing as that religious leaders abuse their followers by appealing to them to believe them i.e. their religious leaders, they religious leaders know better.

Do you Abstraction get my point?








yrger · 80-89, M
@Abstraction

Hi Abstraction, I am still waiting for your reply to my invitation for us to concur on "You and I we exist, yes or no."






yrger · 80-89, M
@Abstraction

I am Yrger the author of the present thread.

Okay, hi Abstraction, let us work together to concur on this statement: You and I we exist, yes or no.

Everything you say is convoluted and written specifically to be confusing and redundant. And you have the audacity to say anyone else is long winded lol. God doesn't exist. All you are saying is everything is god and wording it in a convoluted way to confuse others. Which is called gobbledegook by the way. A tool used by lawyers to confuse a jury

Hi everyone, I am Yrger the theist and author of the present thread, "God and existence are identical."

This DocSavage atheist character is a master of self-obfuscation, he wants to make it appear that I am adhering to the following untruth and unfact:
That "god came from nothing and created everything from nothing."

I never say that.

What I am stating is that (1) God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself, and that (2) God created everything using Himself as the material of which to produce everything that He did create.









The ambiguity in the word material.

God created everything using Himself as the material=stuff of which to produce everything that He did create. -Yrger

That god is spirit and non material as opposed to spiritual (correct) -DocSavage



My new finding in re DocSavage is that in addition to self-obfuscation, he is also guity of self-ambiguity

@Abstraction

You say:
Christianity teaches that God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing.

Do you mean that God uses nothingness as the material to produce the universe, like say the baker uses flour to make bread?

Can you cite any formal doctrinal statement of Christianity's duo-millennial bibliography declaring that teaching?







Abstraction · 61-69, M
I agree that anything not God is created by God - even though it may change after it is formed. Just a technical clarification - I'm a Christian so I don't view God and existence of the material universe as identical. That view is pantheism or panentheism which is more commonly held in eastern religions. Christianity teaches that God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing. God is imminent and transcendent. Imminent (ie, present to any place - although not like a gas) and transcendent (beyond the material universe).

@hartfire
@Abstraction

It is all existence, but there is the permanent self-existing reality that is the God creator and operator of everything that is not Himself.

This God creator and operator uses His own substance to produce all non-self existing realities.

That is why we are all namely man and the universe are all made up (by God) with and from the God substance scil. God 'stuff'.


Now, what are your objections to my exposition above?







yrger · 80-89, M
@hartfire
@Abstraction


You two can join together for a mutual admiration club.

"That talk set me (you two) thinking anew about the topic.
Very interesting. :)"

Now, I am Yrger the author of the present thread, pray tell me, what is the topic all about?

And no need to parade your erudition covering the Vedas, around 3,000 years ago to the modern physics of Einstein and the current Dr. Charles L Harper on emergence.

I sent word to Newjaninev2 , she’s out visiting friends, but should be back soon. That’s as close to “Dawkins” as you’re going to get.
Personally, I think you should try someone closer to your level of reason and intelligence.
I’m sure he’ll be agreeable to a rematch, you were caught unprepared last time.

Just to keep the record straight, I included some of the highlights from your previous post, so people here know what you did and did not say.
Self defecating liars such as yourself, tend to change their story and forget their own shit. Here’s a few reminders.

You might want to bring up the glaringly obvious fact that he hasn’t a single shred of evidence to support a single word of it.
He made up the whole thing, and expects you to agree with him. In concise words, because there are so many flaws in his case the whole of SW doesn’t have enough space to list them.
In short, he’s full of shit.

@DocSavage
[@all atheists]

If you don't accept God as the creator of everything that is not God Himself, tell me what is your alternative to God, just present one alternative from each of you and do it in concise words.


Hi Doc, you mention:

Man made objects (You are now an idolater.)

Quantum foam (It is purely theoretical* i.e. all inside your foamy brain.)


They don't explain man's existence as good as the God concept.




*Quantum foam or spacetime foam is a theoretical quantum fluctuation of spacetime on very small scales due to quantum mechanics. The theory predicts that at these small scales, particles of matter and antimatter are constantly created and destroyed. These subatomic objects are called virtual particles.[1] The idea was devised by John Wheeler in 1955.[2][3] Wikipedia)

@hartfire


What about this definition of consciousness from yours truly Yrger:
In regard to humans, consciousness is the fundamental status of man experiencing his animate existence, so that man must first be in that status before he can do any action he is accountable to himself and to fellow humans.

Consequentially to this definition of consciousness, when man should lose consciousness, like for example he gets knocked out of his mind by an opponent in the boxing sport ring, he is not existing for the time being as a human, at most he is only 'vegetating'.


Hi heartfire, what do you say about my definition of consciousness?






You say:
"So far, no one has been able to measure or quantify consciousness."

I asked you:
What about you first define what is consciousness?

@hartfire
@Abstraction

Hi you two, I challenge you to produce something like what I have produced, instead of regurgitating putrid erudition of no connection with genuine knowledge of reality.

@hartfire
@Abstraction


You two can join together for a mutual admiration club.

"That talk set me (you two) thinking anew about the topic.
Very interesting. :)"

Now, I am Yrger the author of the present thread, pray tell me, what is the topic all about?

And no need to parade your erudition covering the Vedas, around 3,000 years ago to the modern physics of Einstein and the current Dr. Charles L Harper on emergence.










hartfire
@Abstraction Well reasoned.
I chatted with physicists and it's true that most are very open minded - and it is the philosophers and neurologists who tend to have a mistakenly closed idea about the theories and discoveries from physics.
That talk set me thinking anew about the topic.
Very interesting. :)

@LordShadowfire


Give me an example of your Sarcastic writing.




LordShadowfire · 46-50, MVIP
This is Shadowfire the Sarcastic writing.

Hi, dipshit. Tell me, are you ever going to ask a question that makes any kind of logical sense?

@hartfire

That is a pretty voluminous collection of words.

Tell me, what do you call yourself, theist or atheist or whatever.

I am theist, what about you?


Anyway, suppose you tell me what is the difference between you and me.

From my part, the difference between you and me is that I know God exists as before anything else, He is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of everything that is not Himself.

And from your voluminous collection of words, I know you to be different in that you are full of volume of words that end up without saying anything about what you know about yourself.

And to who or what does this god owe his existence, if as you claim something cannot come from nothing ?
Please answer, clearly and concisely. And demonstrate your evidence
For the rest of us.

@Everyone


Hi everyone, I am Yrger the theist and author of the present thread, "God and existence are identical."

This DocSavage atheist character is a master of self-obfuscation, he wants to make it appear that I am adhering to the following untruth and unfact:
That "god came from nothing and created everything from nothing."

I never say that.

What I am stating is that (1) God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself, and that (2) God created everything using Himself as the material of which to produce everything that He did create.

@DocSavage


You have not yet presented your idea of the God you deny to exist.

Do it now, otherwise you don't have any idea at all about the God you deny to exist, and that is again and again and again . . . due to your essential absurdity in your brain.

And your cheanting strategy is to evade or digress from the topic altogether, the topic is "God and existence* are identical."


---------------------


yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage


You have not yet presented your idea of the God you deny to exist.

Here is my idea of the God I know to exist:
"God is the permanent self-existent creator and operator of everything that is not God Himself.





*Not universe as you cheating-ly want to mis-represent my terminology

The Christian god, simply parted the waters and separated the land from the water. Then stuck a crystal dome over it.
You are the one claiming god came from nothing and created everything from nothing.

@DocSavage

You are as usual into your self-obfuscation, self-ambiguitation, and self-inanitation, in order to evade getting to the God I know to exist, from reason and intelligence.

So, what do you know about the God I know to exist, or you prefer to deny one of the gods you know to exist, in that case, please go away and don't return to this my thread, for it is about the God I know to exist and Whose essence is existence itself, so that God and His existence are identical, as my thread is all about, namely:







DocSavage · M
What part of “Atheist “ don’t you understand ?
There’s thousands of god throughout history. I don’t believe in any. What makes you think I’m limited to one ?

@hartfire


Please identify yourself, are you theist or atheist?


If you are atheist, then for me who is theist, you have got to deny God according to my idea of God, otherwise we are not talking about the same idea and the same reality.

With the kind of atheists like DocSavage who is into continuous nonsensical cheating misrepresentation, it is not productive to have any exchange with him, for he is unfit for productive connected dialogue.

He can do his nonsensical and lewd language in the internet, but outside in a formal debate, he would be before anything else - disqualified right away.

@Justmeraeagain

Just stop talking about who is arrogant, answer my demand (or go away):





yrger · 80-89, M
Hi atheists:
I am Yrger the theist, if you don't accept God as the creator of everything that is not God Himself, tell me what is your alternative to God, just present one alternative from each of you and do it in concise words.





Justmeraeagain · 51-55, F
"Pride goes before a fall."-

I find challenging people in this way to be arrogant.
Trying to prove you are superior is arrogant.
This only brings ridicule and in the end both parties go off still believing thier original stance.

@hartfire

Thanks for your exposition.

Please identify yourself, are you theist or atheist?


If you are atheist, then for me who is theist, you have got to deny God according to my idea of God, otherwise we are not talking about the same idea and the same reality.

With the kind of atheists like DocSavage who is into continuous nonsensical cheating misrepresentation, it is not productive to have any exchange with him, for he is unfit for productive connected dialogue.

He can do his nonsensical and lewd language in the internet, but outside in a formal debate, he would be before anything else - disqualified right away.

Why put the word "essentially " in there?
He either is or nah.
God is the beginning.
Existence comes to an end.
Angels were around at the start.
1/3 rebelled and God's plan fell apart.
Not God , not man, the woman also listened to her own heart.
She took one little tug and we have been paying for it ever since.
God couldn't have stopped her?
Maybe he could've put up a fence.
Man did not die like God said he would if he took a bite .
So that makes God a liar, a sinner.
Wait...how can he stand accused AND be presiding judge?
That ain't right.

God hates sin.
And sex is sin.
But sin is forgiven
So sex is in.

No, you said god is self existent. He was not created by any other source. No ancestors , nothing whatsoever. He’s just there. No explanation. With all the powers needed for creation, and a very long range plan. Billions of years in the making.
He’s permanent, so I would guess you believe him immortal. And he seems to have a personal interest in us.
It’s hard to pin down all the details, and be concise. The universe is pretty complicated and complex after all.
That’s why you have gods in the first place. Simple and convenient
Takes away most of the problems for people like you.

@DocSavage




You have not yet presented your idea of the God you deny to exist.

Do it now, otherwise you don't have any idea at all about the God you deny to exist, and that is again and again and again . . . due to your essential absurdity in your brain.

And your cheanting strategy is to evade or digress from the topic altogether, the topic is "God and existence (not universe) are identical."


Addressing all atheists, please come up with an orderly and concisely drfted exposition of your explanation for the existence of man, and of course taking into account your concept of God.

I agree that anything not God is created by God - even though it may change after it is formed. Just a technical clarification - I'm a Christian so I don't view God and existence of the material universe as identical. That view is pantheism or panentheism which is more commonly held in eastern religions. Christianity teaches that God created the universe ex nihilo, from nothing. God is imminent and transcendent. Imminent (ie, present to any place - although not like a gas) and transcendent (beyond the material universe).

@hartfire

I am Yrger, the author of the thread, "God and existence are identical."

I really would like to read your opinion on God and existence are identical.



You have plenty of words in your post I copied and pasted below.

Supposing you are required to take an essay type examination, on the topic God and existence are identical, and you sum your write up in high definition focus of say 65 words.

Still having trouble understanding the term “Atheist “ are you ?
You’re not going to find a better one than me.
Your opening statement calls for the acknowledgment of a creator god, which you have absolutely no evidence for. I have chased you through all your post, trying to get you to show, what you claim is obvious to anyone with reason and intelligence. Disagreeing with you is not the same as stopping dialogue. You refused to discuss evidence and ran away. I still hear, and you still haven’t presented any evidence.
Remember last time ?