My beliefs

[Yorick]

Originally posted by sultan: same evidence, different conclusion. i like you, yorick. as frustrating as it can be, you force me to think different. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Kudos to you Sultan. I like you too. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

How could something be infinite, and not be everywhere as well as be 'outside' space?

How could something be omnipresent and not exist in all-time as well as 'out side' time?


Any thoughts/answers folks? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: How could something be infinite, and not be everywhere as well as be 'outside' space? How could something be omnipresent and not exist in all-time as well as 'out side' time? Any thoughts/answers folks? [img]smile.gif[/img]

The inclusiveness of that is panentheism. Outside space and time, yet also all of existence.

However, omnipotence under monotheism, holds that he is everywhere, but is not everything. Everywhere in spirit, but not in physicality. When we see God in a tree, we see his handiwork, like we see VanGough in a VanGough painting. VanGough is in it. Clearly. He has expressed, and a side of VanGough comes out and is only seen through the painting.

You could say "he is all over the painting". But he is not the painting.

Other thinking holds that God's thought energy is the energy that holds atoms together. In that Gods thought, his Spirit is actually between every atom - but that he is not those atoms. That he in fact is not physical as we know it, but Spiritual.

[ 11-13-2003, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Faceman, I would say you cannot DISprove anything outside your experience. I would say your line of reasoning makes DISproving God an impossibility.

Exactly!
You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god.
And the good thing is you don't have to. If you already believe in God you need not prove he exists if you don't believe, what good would it be to disprove it to another who is quite happy with his beliefs?
As I said it all comes down to subjective perception and you neither can nor need to prove that to another [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Erm... let me beat Yorick to it: He *has* experienced God, and therefore God is proven. In fact, he'll say you can never PROVE a negative, since you can't experience the lack of something, and that you can only PROVE a positive. Basically, you're in the box of being unable to disprove anything but able only to prove things.

Right, Yorick?

Oh -- and I disagree with him on quite a bit of this. [/QUOTE]Sure. You cannot with any certainty say something does not exist, only that you have never experienced something.

If you say, "God does not exist" I say "Yes he does, I experience him every day". Your statement attempts to devalidate my experience in it's assertion.

However, were you to say "I have never experienced God and have no knowledge of him" I have no argument. I cannot say "yes you have" that would be ridiculous, yet, if I said "Yes you have experienced God", I would be doing EXACTLY the same thing as a person saying to me "no you have not experienced God". Which is a person trying to tell another what their experience of reality is. [/QUOTE]YES! YESYES!! [img]graemlins/jumpclap.gif[/img]
Ah, the sweet sensation that is a discussional agreement.
I agree on the whole [img]smile.gif[/img] And you put it very clearly and concise [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: How could something be infinite, and not be everywhere as well as be 'outside' space? How could something be omnipresent and not exist in all-time as well as 'out side' time? Any thoughts/answers folks? [img]smile.gif[/img]

one way i can think of is to make it relativistic. that is, that "infinite" and "omnipresent" are a matter of perspective. so, that which we call infinite and omnipresent is just so relative to our realm of experience, but perhaps on another scale or from another perspective, it seems finite and limited.

like that pop culture scientist talking about "infinite regression" in escape from the planet of the apes:

a painter paints a landscape with everything in it, except he's missing something: himself painting the landscape. so he paints himself into it, but it's still incomplete because the picture lacks him painting himself painting the landscape. so he adds another layer of himself, etc.

if you could talk to someone in any layer of those worlds, each would say the painter that painted their picture is infinite and omnipresent. but on a higher level (ie from another perspective) that painter is infinitesimal, irrelevant.

if you take that to infinity, there's always another painter. ad infinitum [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Maelakin]

I'm a few posts behind here, but I have something I would like to add.

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Faceman, I would say you cannot DISprove anything outside your experience. I would say your line of reasoning makes DISproving God an impossibility.

Exactly!
You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god.
And the good thing is you don't have to. If you already believe in God you need not prove he exists if you don't believe, what good would it be to disprove it to another who is quite happy with his beliefs?
As I said it all comes down to subjective perception and you neither can nor need to prove that to another [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Erm... let me beat Yorick to it: He *has* experienced God, and therefore God is proven. In fact, he'll say you can never PROVE a negative, since you can't experience the lack of something, and that you can only PROVE a positive. Basically, you're in the box of being unable to disprove anything but able only to prove things.

Right, Yorick?

Oh -- and I disagree with him on quite a bit of this. [/QUOTE]Sure. You cannot with any certainty say something does not exist, only that you have never experienced something.

If you say, "God does not exist" I say "Yes he does, I experience him every day". Your statement attempts to devalidate my experience in it's assertion.

However, were you to say "I have never experienced God and have no knowledge of him" I have no argument. I cannot say "yes you have" that would be ridiculous, yet, if I said "Yes you have experienced God", I would be doing EXACTLY the same thing as a person saying to me "no you have not experienced God". Which is a person trying to tell another what their experience of reality is. [/QUOTE]I would also have to agree with this statement. One cannot question the existence of something they have not experienced. However, one can question the nature of that existence.

In all the theological discussions people have, I often feel as if they really do not understand the nature of the discussion. When two groups get together, one attempting to prove God’s existence and the other trying to disprove that existence, I think they are just talking to talk. The real discussion is how God exists. Is he nothing more than a conceptual being? Is he an omniscience and omnipotent creator outside the boundaries of our universe?

I place most the blame for this on those who do not believe in God, because many seem to feel if they acknowledge the existence of God in any form, they have no grounds for discussion.

[Yorick]

Now because we're all in agreement, we've got nothing more to say....

Difference is the spice of life.

[LordKathen]

The last word prevails...

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by LordKathen: The last word prevails...

....til yet another comes along. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: How could something be infinite, and not be everywhere as well as be 'outside' space? How could something be omnipresent and not exist in all-time as well as 'out side' time? Any thoughts/answers folks? [img]smile.gif[/img]

one way i can think of is to make it relativistic. that is, that "infinite" and "omnipresent" are a matter of perspective. so, that which we call infinite and omnipresent is just so relative to our realm of experience, but perhaps on another scale or from another perspective, it seems finite and limited.

like that pop culture scientist talking about "infinite regression" in escape from the planet of the apes:

a painter paints a landscape with everything in it, except he's missing something: himself painting the landscape. so he paints himself into it, but it's still incomplete because the picture lacks him painting himself painting the landscape. so he adds another layer of himself, etc.

if you could talk to someone in any layer of those worlds, each would say the painter that painted their picture is infinite and omnipresent. but on a higher level (ie from another perspective) that painter is infinitesimal, irrelevant.

if you take that to infinity, there's always another painter. ad infinitum [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Do we redefine the word infinite when we make it relativistic like this? Even the well thought "scene" you painted here, Sultan, is finite. Any attempt we make to define or describe infinity is destined going to fall short because we will still be limited to finite words, finite paintings, finite thoughts. Is something that is deemed infinite {forever and endless in all directions), yet has something 'outside it' not actually infinite?

The logic of duality, the concept of opposite, the very fact that things are finite and I can conceive (but not comprehend in totality) finite's opposite is one 'argument' I can offer that infinity actually exists. Which brings me back to the idea that infinity is mostly beyond human comprehension. We can create words and symbols to represent it, but to totally expirience it, we must actually become infinite.

Also, Unless we are indeed 'part' of infinity, can infinity actually exist?.