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, and anything not God is created by God.

I have discussed this issue with atheists almost forever, but eventuallu they stopped their dialogue with me, for example one atheist called DocSavage.

So, I long for better atheists than DocSavage.

If no atheists come forward, that means they don't have reason and intelligence to dialog with me.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.

hartfire

@yrger I've written plenty of essays at uni - in visual arts, philosophy, psychology, history, journalism and creative writing.
There is almost no situation in which a summary would be only 65 words.

The problem with your own definitions is that they don't work without changing the meanings of the words as they normally apply in their dictionary definitions.

It is not sufficient to be delighted with an idea, unless of course the individual likes to enjoy it privately.
In the public arena, one has to be prepared for the reality of many different kinds of responses.
These are deep subjects. If one wants to think and discuss deeply one must be prepared to go deep and look at all angles of a topic.

~~~
An essay in the humanities is written according to the following structure with variations according to the discipline (the word count is preset by the tutor):-

--- Introduction, 5% of the word count:
introduces the premise, the method of discussion, and names the references.

--- The middle or body of the essay is 85% of the word count, excluding exact quotes (which may not exceed 5%) and citations and references (not included in the count). The paragraphs should vary in length and sentence construction:
- 2nd paragraph: clearly defines the key terms, may introduce standard alternative definitions in order to clarify how the key words are to be used in the context of this essay.
- 3rd para: discusses the history of the premise, the opposing views, and what is good, lacking or mistaken in them.
- 4th: Enlarges on the writer's key premises. This may be several paragraphs, one for each of the key points, showing how it improves on previous models.

--- Summary 5%:
restates the introduction with different syntax and with a more confident tone. With reference to the works of..., this writer has shown how... .

hartfire

@hartfire As I said in the beginning, I cannot answer your question concisely.
If you can't read a few hundred words then you're not committed to really thinking the problem through from all angles, including the views of others.

The idea that god is existence and vice versa is logically and factually absurd.
By the definitions of those words it is not possible - hence it is logically and factually absurd.
You asked for an intelligent response. I did my bit in my own way and you were unwilling to read it.
I reckon no one would be able to give a serious and considered response in under 65 words, or even a hundred.

So this is the end of my communications on this thread.

DocSavage · M

[@yrger/emptyskull

Sounds like you’re describing Vinishu, the sleeping god. His dreams are our existence. When he wakes we all end. You didn’t say you were a Hindu