Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

-




.....then that must mean he also exists in Hell.




I think that's a contradiction. If God is omnipresent, and exists in all places and facets of actuality, then he must also exist in Hell. But if Hell is a place of pure evil, and no good can exist there, then how can God be there? And if God is Holy and Pure, and Hell is the absense of God, then how can God exist in Hell at all ?


And if God does not exist in Hell, then how is he omnipresent ?

No.

No...what ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
No...what ?

God is not Omnipresent.

I agree


The only way God can be omnipresent is if he/she is everything and everywhere. If God was good and evil, then God could occupy Hell as well as everything else.

God is not Omnipresent. Who said he was?

Originally posted by Jesusisalive
Moreover, the universe is an impersonal entity whereas God--based on the Scriptures--is the all-intelligent/knowing, all-present, all-powerful Creator. There is no comparison between the two.

You started a thread based off of a statement from JIA?

The Bible says that there is no where that god is not.....sooo yes. God is in hell.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The Bible says that there is no where that god is not.....sooo yes. God is in hell. And why do you assume hell is a place?

If God is omnipresent, then he is everywhere...Heaven and Hell...whether or not they are places or states of mind is semantics.

If God is everywhere, then he is also in Hell, but that would be a contradiction.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If God is omnipresent, then he is everywhere...Heaven and Hell...whether or not they are places or states of mind is semantics.

If God is everywhere, then he is also in Hell, but that would be a contradiction.

However, if Gods consciousness transcends your conceptions of time and space, he doesn't have to physically be there to be there. I don't know how to explain that...but everything is "one eternal now"* with God.

*Joseph Smith

Originally posted by dadudemon
he doesn't have to physically be there to be there. He also doesn't have to be recognized. God's presense can be felt anywhere but can also be ignored anywhere, which is why evil exists despite God being there.

So if Om is Godnipresent...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So if Om is Godnipresent...


Spoonerism FTW?

Originally posted by Quark_666
And why do you assume hell is a place? People misinterpret the word Hell as a place, but it is not. It's a state of being.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
People misinterpret the word Hell as a place, but it is not. It's a state of being.

And this is why many theologians interpret Hell to be a separation from God.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And this is why many theologians interpret Hell to be a separation from God. Exactly. And the term "hellfire" has a bunch of connotations other that physical heat and burning as well.

nothing is omnipresent. other than SEEING everything, one would have to FEAL everything from every possible perspective at the same time too. {and this is impossible as many things, to maintain thair uniqueness in perspective, need to be felt seperately from other perspectives. e.g. you can not feal true dispair in a certain situation if you are also looking at it from a hopeful perspective simultaneously}. this applies more easily to people's thoughts, even if you were able to sumhow SEE or FEAL sum1 else's thoughts, your experience of them wud be different than the expirience of the actual person, simply because, you are not in the same state he/she is and feal differently about the thought {based on your own state of being} than they do. this subjective facet of reality in my oppinion destroys the omnipresence paradigm. which also explaines why the god of scriptures doesnt have empathy for each and every individual soul's view. simply because those are things no1 can truly know all at the same time as they contradict each other and destroy unity of an entity.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
simply because those are things no1 can truly know all at the same time as they contradict each other and destroy unity of an entity.


Yeah to experience that, you'd have to be....I dunno....

Omnipotent

Originally posted by Deja~vu
People misinterpret the word Hell as a place, but it is not. It's a state of being.

Even in this case, God is a part of that.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The Bible says that there is no where that god is not.....sooo yes. God is in hell.

The bible also doesn't state that God isn't in your anus. God is in your anus.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nothing is omnipresent. other than SEEING everything, one would have to FEAL everything from every possible perspective at the same time too. {and this is impossible as many things, to maintain thair uniqueness in perspective, need to be felt seperately from other perspectives. e.g. you can not feal true dispair in a certain situation if you are also looking at it from a hopeful perspective simultaneously}. this applies more easily to people's thoughts, even if you were able to sumhow SEE or FEAL sum1 else's thoughts, your experience of them wud be different than the expirience of the actual person, simply because, you are not in the same state he/she is and feal differently about the thought {based on your own state of being} than they do. this subjective facet of reality in my oppinion destroys the omnipresence paradigm. which also explaines why the god of scriptures doesnt have empathy for each and every individual soul's view. simply because those are things no1 can truly know all at the same time as they contradict each other and destroy unity of an entity.

We're talking about God, an all powerful abstract entity that always was and always will be, so God is pretty much be limitless, no matter how illogical and silly it may be. For all technical purposes, God created time, TIME.

Originally posted by Robtard
The bible also doesn't state that God isn't in your anus. God is in your anus.



OH TRUST ME...God's been in my anus before....literally droolio

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nothing is omnipresent. other than SEEING everything, one would have to FEAL everything from every possible perspective at the same time too. {and this is impossible as many things, to maintain thair uniqueness in perspective, need to be felt seperately from other perspectives. e.g. you can not feal true dispair in a certain situation if you are also looking at it from a hopeful perspective simultaneously}. this applies more easily to people's thoughts, even if you were able to sumhow SEE or FEAL sum1 else's thoughts, your experience of them wud be different than the expirience of the actual person, simply because, you are not in the same state he/she is and feal differently about the thought {based on your own state of being} than they do. this subjective facet of reality in my oppinion destroys the omnipresence paradigm. which also explaines why the god of scriptures doesnt have empathy for each and every individual soul's view. simply because those are things no1 can truly know all at the same time as they contradict each other and destroy unity of an entity.




I appreciate your input, but I think you are over analyzing it, and that's not necessary in my opinion.


I think it's much simpler than that: If God is omnipresent, then that means he exists everywhere, not just physically, but in all facets of existence, including the mental and spiritual.

Hell, whether or not it's a place or whether or not it's a state of mind (the Bible pretty much describes it as a very real place btw...), it still is under the realm of creation/existance.

So...



If God is omnipresent then he exists in Hell as well.


If God does not exist in Hell, then he is not omnipresent.

Who is the Creator?
Creator is a collective, special Force that monitors the whole system of creation. That Force is one and unique. In Kabbalah there is but one primary law - the law of creation, which is to delight the creatures in any way the creatures can be delighted. All other laws stem from that one law, and everything that happens does so in the carrying out of that law. Everything that happens at any given moment in creation, its sole purpose is to take people come to the pointof utter bliss - to be filled with the Light of the Creator.
The Creator acts much like gravity: in the center of creation is the Creator. The souls were distanced five worlds away from Him. We live in the last one, called "our world". From that point Creator pulls us toward Him.
We sense that pull as pain - beginning with disease and ending in painful death. But if we make an effort to approach the Creator by cooperating with that Force, we will nor feel the pain. Instead, we will feel that Force as good. If, however, we refuse to, we will feel any troubles to the same extent that we resist. The Creator created us through His wish to give, to bestow. He created our will to receive exactly in the amount that He wanted to give. That why we must attain everything that He wants to give us eternity, strength, perfection, total control. This means we must assume all the duties of the Creator.
The primery law of creation is the singularity of the Creator-the one and only power that controls everything."There is none beside Him".
The second law of creation is that the Creator is totally benevolent. We cannot settle the contradiction between these two laws as they appear in our conception of reality.
To Kabbalists, this is not an"idea", but a fact they discover within their sansation of the Creator. People cannot begin to understand how there could have been a holocaust if there is a Creator, because they do not feel Him!!! In fact, the benevolence of the Creator appears only in our corrected desires.
If we are not corrected, then to the extent of the corruption to the Light, we will feel the opposite of the goodness of the Creator, feelings torment instead of happiness.
__________________________________________________
_____________________

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
OH TRUST ME...God's been in my anus before....literally droolio

Don't you mean "oh thrust me"? hmm

Hmm...i dont get it

yet another paradox of the 3 Os

I like it

SoD, you are open to charges of hypocrisy if you say that syaing hell is not a physical place is semantcis, and then indulge in semantics yourself in your definition of 'omnipresent'. That 'omnipresent' extends to non-physical places is an opnion, not a fact, and is simply adopting a meaning of the word that suits your argument.

Originally posted by inimalist
yet another paradox of the 3 Os

I like it
How's this for a paradox...

http://secure.tommydocks.com/images/home/pontoon_docks_big.jpg

Originally posted by Mindship
How's this for a paradox...

http://secure.tommydocks.com/images/home/pontoon_docks_big.jpg

hmm

..........


I didn't think you had this much "smartass" in you. That certainly is a "darn tootin'" paradox.

An omnipresent God could be in Hell while nothing of its grace is felt in such place.

Hell is the presence of God in His wrath. It is His eternal punishment for the wicked.

Psalm 139:8 "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
SoD, you are open to charges of hypocrisy if you say that syaing hell is not a physical place is semantcis, and then indulge in semantics yourself in your definition of 'omnipresent'. That 'omnipresent' extends to non-physical places is an opnion, not a fact, and is simply adopting a meaning of the word that suits your argument.


First of all, In the Bible you will see that Hell is described as a place, not just a state of mind. Hell has fire according to the Bible, meaning it occupies Space. It is also said to be under the earth...


Secondly, even if Hell were simply a state of mind, the mind is still a place where God would exist. If God does not exist in the mind, then he is not really omnipresent.


So either way, whether Hell be a real place, or an event, or whatever you want to call it, if God does not exist there, then he is not truly omnipresent.



If God were truly omnipresent, there could be no separation from him. Do you understand ? It's quite simple Ush.

The only way you could be separated from God, if God is truly omnipresent, is if you end up no where, meaning you no longer exist. If you suffer in Hell, then you still exist, and thus, there is an existance where God is not. Then he cannot be omnipresent.

Okay ?

Originally posted by Bentley
An omnipresent God could be in Hell while nothing of its grace is felt in such place.


Then Hell is not a place where only the evil dwell and thus would be a contradiction.


And if God is truly Holy and Sacred, and Hell is separation from God, then how could the two be together ? It really doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
-




.....then that must mean he also exists in Hell.




I think that's a contradiction. If God is omnipresent, and exists in all places and facets of actuality, then he must also exist in Hell. But if Hell is a place of pure evil, and no good can exist there, then how can God be there? And if God is Holy and Pure, and Hell is the absense of God, then how can God exist in Hell at all ?


And if God does not exist in Hell, then how is he omnipresent ?






An omnipotent creature is not necessarily limited by simple conceptions of logic.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
First of all, In the Bible you will see that Hell is described as a place, not just a state of mind. Hell has fire according to the Bible, meaning it occupies Space. It is also said to be under the earth...


Secondly, even if Hell were simply a state of mind, the mind is still a place where God would exist. If God does not exist in the mind, then he is not really omnipresent.


So either way, whether Hell be a real place, or an event, or whatever you want to call it, if God does not exist there, then he is not truly omnipresent.



If God were truly omnipresent, there could be no separation from him. Do you understand ? It's quite simple Ush.

The only way you could be separated from God, if God is truly omnipresent, is if you end up no where, meaning you no longer exist. If you suffer in Hell, then you still exist, and thus, there is an existance where God is not. Then he cannot be omnipresent.

Okay ?

Do you have scriptures for this that are not metaphorical, allegorical, or symbolic but are literal in interpretation. hmm

Even in Mormonism, we are not sure what Outer Darkness(hell) is. Some say it is a state of mind, others say it is a universe of true nothingness. (Yes, Shaky, pure utter nothingness.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
An omnipotent creature is not necessarily limited by simple conceptions of logic.


But my point is, it is not logical in the first place.


And I am not necessarily discussing an omnipotent being, but an omnipresent one.


If God is truly omnipresent, then there is no existence which is separate from himself. Only non existence could be separate from him. If Hell exists, and it is separation from God, then God is not truly omnipresent, only virtually so.


For God to be truthfully omnipresent, but for Hell to be the separation from God at the same time would be illogical and contradicting.


If God is perfection, how can anything having to do with him be illogical and contradicting ... ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If God is truly omnipresent, then there is no existence which is separate from himself. Only non existence could be separate from him. If Hell exists, and it is separation from God, then God is not truly omnipresent, only virtually so.

I tend agree with the above. I also think that for all intents and purposes, God was omnipresent for the understanding of those the scriptures were originally written for. Due to how in depth people are getting with interpretations, it may become necessary to redefine or even come up with a new word and definition for what God really is. He is virtually omnipotent and omnipresent. To me, he is virtually omniscient as well because it is possible that there are other things beyond God out there. (Such as God having sibling Gods that are in no way shape or form, part of this reality...or he may have a God that is above him...there could be an infinite number of generations of Gods before our God because of omnipresence.)

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
First of all, In the Bible you will see that Hell is described as a place, not just a state of mind. Hell has fire according to the Bible, meaning it occupies Space. It is also said to be under the earth...


Secondly, even if Hell were simply a state of mind, the mind is still a place where God would exist. If God does not exist in the mind, then he is not really omnipresent.


So either way, whether Hell be a real place, or an event, or whatever you want to call it, if God does not exist there, then he is not truly omnipresent.



If God were truly omnipresent, there could be no separation from him. Do you understand ? It's quite simple Ush.

The only way you could be separated from God, if God is truly omnipresent, is if you end up no where, meaning you no longer exist. If you suffer in Hell, then you still exist, and thus, there is an existance where God is not. Then he cannot be omnipresent.

Okay ?

No not really, because you are still making assumptions about the word 'omnipresent' in extending it to non-physical places. That you want to interpret it like that, fine! But don't expect everyone else to. In the end, your argument also comes down to semantics.

It is indeed very simple! But you are the one not understanding it. You are blinding yourself in your deterimation to score cheap points of logic that frankly have no value.

Not that it makes any difference at all to anything Christians believe whether he has a presence there or not, but your argument is still deeply flawed.

then the word omnipresent can't be used. either god is omnipresent or not. if god is omnipresent, then god is in all things humans can imagine, period.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
And I am not necessarily discussing an omnipotent being, but an omnipresent one.

You are clearly refering to the Judeo-Christian god, who is usually viewed as being omnipotent.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
For God to be truthfully omnipresent, but for Hell to be the separation from God at the same time would be illogical and contradicting.

If God is perfection, how can anything having to do with him be illogical and contradicting ... ?

You're making an assumption about perfection.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos



You're making an assumption about perfection.

Allah-uh Akbar. God is great. Now lets move on.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Then Hell is not a place where only the evil dwell and thus would be a contradiction.


And if God is truly Holy and Sacred, and Hell is separation from God, then how could the two be together ? It really doesn't make sense.

I have never believed for a second that there is only evil in hell, since even by definition, if the people there are in damnation because of God's will, the tortures in hell serve God and thus His hand is in hell. So to me the definition you give of Hell is what creates the conflict in the first place.

God is indeed everywhere, even in hell, but it cannot be perceived for those inside hell who live in despair.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Allah-uh Akbar. God is great. Now lets move on.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/1192057100519.jpg

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No not really, because you are still making assumptions about the word 'omnipresent' in extending it to non-physical places. That you want to interpret it like that, fine! But don't expect everyone else to. In the end, your argument also comes down to semantics.


Since when is omnipresent only applied to physical places ? Cuz that's news to me buddy.




Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is indeed very simple! But you are the one not understanding it. You are blinding yourself in your deterimation to score cheap points of logic that frankly have no value.


That's simply your opinion, and nothing more, so I will not bother arguing it.




Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not that it makes any difference at all to anything Christians believe whether he has a presence there or not, but your argument is still deeply flawed.


How is my argument flawed ? I love how you are not actually addressing it, but still attempt to critisize it. Funny.



It's fairly simple, and if you just look at it, you will see:


If there is any where in existence where God is not present, then he is not truly omnipresent. He can't be everywhere "except in this one place", and still be omnipresent.


If God is everywhere and occupies everything, then there can't be an existance where he is not and that is not himself. The only conclusion is that non existence is the only true separation from God.


What part do you not understand ?





Originally posted by chithappens
then the word omnipresent can't be used. either god is omnipresent or not. if god is omnipresent, then god is in all things humans can imagine, period.







I'm glad someone understands.






Originally posted by symmetric chaos
You are clearly refering to the Judeo-Christian god, who is usually viewed as being omnipotent.



But omnipotence and omnipresence are not the same thing. I am sure if you have one, then you can easily obtain the other, but that is besides the point.


I am only discussing omnipresence, not omnipotence. So please stay on topic.

Secondly, back to the point: It is illogical and contradicting for an omnipresent being to not exist in Hell. Then that can only mean that Hell doesn't exist, logically.

I am not saying that the illogical answer cannot be true, only that it is not logical in the first place. Do you understand ?





Originally posted by symmetric chaos
You're making an assumption about perfection.



Even though I still back what I said, you have a point. Arguing what perfection is will lead to a never ending nonsense debate. And it is off topic. So feel free to ignore the statement I made on that.







Originally posted by dadudedemon
I tend agree with the above. I also think that for all intents and purposes, God was omnipresent for the understanding of those the scriptures were originally written for. Due to how in depth people are getting with interpretations, it may become necessary to redefine or even come up with a new word and definition for what God really is. He is virtually omnipotent and omnipresent. To me, he is virtually omniscient as well because it is possible that there are other things beyond God out there. (Such as God having sibling Gods that are in no way shape or form, part of this reality...or he may have a God that is above him...there could be an infinite number of generations of Gods before our God because of omnipresence.)




I can always rely on you to have an open minded and objective response


I think you may be right. I think that this God is logically virtually omnipresent (and omniscient and omnipotent), but not literally.


I think it makes more sense though if God was both good and evil. Or if God wasn't either, but rather the personification of everything.


That way, he can occupy Hell, Earth, Heaven, every facet of the universe, including what's beyond the universe, etc. and still be God. However, if this were the case, he wouldn't be a "he".

Wait, I have to ask: Is saying that a "perfect being" is automatically "omnipresent" an assumption?

No, what I said earlier was that how can anything illogical and contradicting come from a being who is perfection ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
No, what I said earlier was that how can anything illogical and contradicting come from a being who is perfection ?

unfortunately, the only logic we have access to is flawed human logic

If logic can exist outside of the human perspective, there is no reason to assume that it would contain the same axioms as ours.

Originally posted by Bentley
I have never believed for a second that there is only evil in hell, since even by definition, if the people there are in damnation because of God's will, the tortures in hell serve God and thus His hand is in hell. So to me the definition you give of Hell is what creates the conflict in the first place.

God is indeed everywhere, even in hell, but it cannot be perceived for those inside hell who live in despair.

Bump myself!

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, the only logic we have access to is flawed human logic

If logic can exist outside of the human perspective, there is no reason to assume that it would contain the same axioms as ours.



Originally posted by spearofdestiny
Even though I still back what I said, you have a point. Arguing what perfection is will lead to a never ending nonsense debate. And it is off topic. So feel free to ignore the statement I made on that.

I said it already, the flaw in your argument is that you think Hell has only evil when it clearly serves a good propose and is in nature not pure evil by definition.

Originally posted by Bentley
I said it already, the flaw in your argument is that you think Hell has only evil when it clearly serves a good propose and is in nature not pure evil by definition.


Supposedly, the Bible dictates Hell as a place of evil and suffering, and Hell is ultimately the absence of God.


If you mean to defy that version of Hell, then tell me...what is Hell really ?

Hell can be a relative absence of God, as I said, as long as God cannot be perceived by those on Hell, they are outside His grace and thus, suffering.

There is a complex answer: Hell is anyplace with less presence of God than this world, when people die outside God's grace they are pushed away from Him, when this happen they go to some other earth where there is "less" God's presence. As they were uncapable of saving themselves in God's eyes when they were closer to God, they are doomed to fail in that lesser place. Loop this until you get yourself eternal damnation. God's grace needs only to be less than that which exists in the world to cause eternal damnation, no need to have zero presence at any point.

Also, we know that Jesus (Christian God) went to limbo/hell to save the damned souls, since God is atemporal, we know that God has in fact, being in hell already, thus there is a presence of God in hell.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Supposedly, the Bible dictates Hell as a place of evil and suffering, and Hell is ultimately the absence of God.


If you mean to defy that version of Hell, then tell me...what is Hell really ?

Jehovah's Witnesses see hell as something different.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny


isnt your point that a quality of God contains a paradox?

I think a discussion of whether logical paradoxes can exist, whether they exist outside of human language, whether logic exists outside of human conception and how close we can come to knowing those axioms is, pretty much, the only important line of dialog.

Every paradox about God is instantly rendered moot if God exists and the paradoxes are merely a product of language.

If you aren't interested in talking about the base assumptions you are making, then there is no reason in discussion. You can actually make ANY statement, and have it be true, so long as the underlying assumptions are assumed to be true. The problem here, is that what you are assuming to be true might not be.

Originally posted by Bentley
Hell can be a relative absence of God, as I said, as long as God cannot be perceived by those on Hell, they are outside His grace and thus, suffering.

There is a complex answer: Hell is anyplace with less presence of God than this world, when people die outside God's grace they are pushed away from Him, when this happen they go to some other earth where there is "less" God's presence. As they were uncapable of saving themselves in God's eyes when they were closer to God, they are doomed to fail in that lesser place. Loop this until you get yourself eternal damnation. God's grace needs only to be less than that which exists in the world to cause eternal damnation, no need to have zero presence at any point.

Also, we know that Jesus (Christian God) went to limbo/hell to save the damned souls, since God is atemporal, we know that God has in fact, being in hell already, thus there is a presence of God in hell.





Okay. So what you are basically saying is that God does exist in Hell.

I wouldn't call it by name. People give it a name. But yes, paradoxes do exist.

Originally posted by inimalist
isnt your point that a quality of God contains a paradox?


Yes, but that's not the basis of what I am saying.


There can be a logical paradox in nature, or in one's lifetime experience.


I just think in this case, the paradox is illogical. I think the contadiction here is more severe than God knowing the future, but there still being free will.



Originally posted by inimalist
I think a discussion of whether logical paradoxes can exist, whether they exist outside of human language, whether logic exists outside of human conception and how close we can come to knowing those axioms is, pretty much, the only important line of dialog.


Well I will admit that I do think logical paradoxes exist in nature, and in many ways which only a number of people can recognize. So I'm not exactly saying that a logical paradox cannot exist.

Like I stated before, I find this paradox illogical. And I don't think it's just a paradox like the one for omnipotence.

If God is omnipresent, then nothing in existence is separate from him. He would exist in all directions, in all categories of thought, in all atoms, in every possible facet of being, since omni encompasses all, and present encompasses being.


The only logical conclusion would be that non-existence is the only thing separate from God.

If Hell is total separation from God, then it exists...but if it exists, then it is a place/idea/state of mind/state of being that does not include God. If that is so, God is then not omnipresent.


So it's not just a paradox, but a logical impossibility. If you want to say that God is beyond logic, and can break the rules of restrictions of reality, then you can say that. But to me, that's a major cop out, and a conveinent "all answer" to anything having to do with God in the first place.


But, I accept your argument about human logic. All we can work with is what we can conceive of, and if God is beyond human conception, then he or it is not bound by our perceptions.

I am simply stating that this contradiction/paradox is not logical or consistent, and thus causes a problem for general understanding.



Originally posted by inimalist
Every paradox about God is instantly rendered moot if God exists and the paradoxes are merely a product of language.


But language does not dictate nature. Whether or not we recognize a paradox to be so, does not render the paradox existent or non-existent. And this problem is not simply that of language, or even common sense.


It's not like the mysterious black hole, or presence of dark matter, or curvature of space time. Those mysteries still fit with each other, and can be explained logically through study and evidence.


The contradiction of God's omnipresence, yet non existence of Hell can't be logically explained or made sense of.







Originally posted by inimalist
If you aren't interested in talking about the base assumptions you are making, then there is no reason in discussion. You can actually make ANY statement, and have it be true, so long as the underlying assumptions are assumed to be true. The problem here, is that what you are assuming to be true might not be.


What do you imagine I am assuming to be true ?


I don't beleive in Hell or the Biblical God.

SoD i answered your question right here. But apparently no one saw it...
Originally posted by Gannon
Hell is the presence of God in His wrath. It is His eternal punishment for the wicked.

Psalm 139:8 "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." Hell is the presence of God in His pure wrath, while heaven is the presence of God in His eternal love.

Therefore there is no contradiction against His omnipresence.

Originally posted by Gannon
SoD i answered your question right here. But apparently no one saw it...
Hell is the presence of God in His pure wrath, while heaven is the presence of God in His eternal love.

Therefore there is no contradiction against His omnipresence. yes however hell is construed in 2 ways. 1 being satan torturing you, and the other is the lack of the presence of god. your description does not exist

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I am simply stating that this contradiction/paradox is not logical or consistent, and thus causes a problem for general understanding.


I'm sorry I cut this down, but I agree with much of what you said, so its all generally "cosign 100%"

I personally don't believe that logical paradoxes can exist in the universe (re: I believe there is some order, but admittedly this is a belief), though humans might not understand this order, so stuff may appear paradoxical to us at times.

I also agree that, if we assume that Hell is supposed to not have God in it, God being omnipresent is a paradox.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
yes however hell is construed in 2 ways. 1 being satan torturing you, and the other is the lack of the presence of god. your description does not exist Where do you get this definition of hell being the absence of God? Just curious.

i think it wud only make sense for god to be omnipresent if god WAS everything, as opposed to being a seperate entity and being PRESENT everywhere.

Would it make sense to you if an omnipresent being had awareness and power over everything but did not presume to exist there?

omnipresence and opmniscience denies the presence of dicrete entities, e.g. our thoughts/sense of self etc. i certainly dont feal god in my self awareness. even if god can SEE it, still doesnt mean he sees it in the same unique way that i do. for god to be omnipresent, he wud have to be able to do that with every discreet entity.

My mistake. Should have used the word "omnipotent." But you satisfied my curiosity anyway

Originally posted by Gannon
Where do you get this definition of hell being the absence of God? Just curious. most christians interpret it this way even our resident christians JIA and ushomefree

Originally posted by leonheartmm
omnipresence and opmniscience denies the presence of dicrete entities, e.g. our thoughts/sense of self etc. i certainly dont feal god in my self awareness. even if god can SEE it, still doesnt mean he sees it in the same unique way that i do. for god to be omnipresent, he wud have to be able to do that with every discreet entity. seriously bro great to have you back on teh religion forum. i think ransfinitum is comin back soon. be ready

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Okay. So what you are basically saying is that God does exist in Hell.

Yeah, that would be the conclusion.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
seriously bro great to have you back on teh religion forum. i think ransfinitum is comin back soon. be ready Yeah he just responded to this age-old dead thread on a conversation that doesn't have a point. Course we all do that with conversations we seriously wanna revive...

Originally posted by Quark_666
Yeah he just responded to this age-old dead thread on a conversation that doesn't have a point. Course we all do that with conversations we seriously wanna revive... oh oh oh which thread. i have no knowledge of this!

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
-




.....then that must mean he also exists in Hell.




I think that's a contradiction. If God is omnipresent, and exists in all places and facets of actuality, then he must also exist in Hell. But if Hell is a place of pure evil, and no good can exist there, then how can God be there? And if God is Holy and Pure, and Hell is the absense of God, then how can God exist in Hell at all ?


And if God does not exist in Hell, then how is he omnipresent ?






Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God is not Omnipresent.

* at long last, we're on the same page...

Originally posted by dadudemon
...it may become necessary to redefine or even come up with a new word and definition for what God really is...
...there could be an infinite number of generations of Gods before our God because of omnipresence.
Perhaps this overall scenario, this all-encompassing process (an infinite regression?), could be the "ultimate form" of God. The "ultimate form" is omnipresent, but perhaps not the lesser manifestations.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think a discussion of whether logical paradoxes can exist, whether they exist outside of human language, whether logic exists outside of human conception and how close we can come to knowing those axioms is, pretty much, the only important line of dialog. I pretty much agree. Start a thread.

Originally posted by Gannon
SoD i answered your question right here. But apparently no one saw it...
Hell is the presence of God in His pure wrath, while heaven is the presence of God in His eternal love.

Therefore there is no contradiction against His omnipresence.


Wait...if Hell is actually God's wrath manifest, then that would make total sense.



The only thing is, I don't think other Christians view Hell as God's wrath, but rather as our path away from God.


But if Hell is actually God's wrath, then it makes sense.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Wait...if Hell is actually God's wrath manifest, then that would make total sense.



The only thing is, I don't think other Christians view Hell as God's wrath, but rather as our path away from God.


But if Hell is actually God's wrath, then it makes sense. no it doesnt, hell i sposed to be either the absence of god, or being tortured by the devil. hwever if its the former then i submit to the kmc religion forum that earth is hell and that we are already repenting for our sins and are garunteed our way into heaven.

LOL, thanks for that insight. You're always a real treat.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Wait...if Hell is actually God's wrath manifest, then that would make total sense.



The only thing is, I don't think other Christians view Hell as God's wrath, but rather as our path away from God.


But if Hell is actually God's wrath, then it makes sense.
Just cause some people believe that hell is the absence of God doesn't make it true. The Bible should is the final authority.


Luke 3:7 "Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

1Th 5:9 "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ."

Psalms 139:8 "If I ascend up into heaven, thou there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."



It's clear that God appoints some to wrath and some to salvation. It's also clear that God is present in hell as well as heaven. Jesus warns the wicked of wrath to come.

So I think it's pretty clear that hell is the wrath of God on the wicked. I couldn't find one verse saying that hell is the absence of God...

"no it doesnt, hell i sposed to be either the absence of god, or being tortured by the devil. hwever if its the former then i submit to the kmc religion forum that earth is hell and that we are already repenting for our sins and are garunteed our way into heaven."----chickenlover

God is all over the earth. We aren't automatically separated from him by being here.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"no it doesnt, hell i sposed to be either the absence of god, or being tortured by the devil. hwever if its the former then i submit to the kmc religion forum that earth is hell and that we are already repenting for our sins and are garunteed our way into heaven."----chickenlover

God is all over the earth. We aren't automatically separated from him by being here.

This life is hell and heaven and 8 other worlds, all in one. That is what Nichiren Buddhism teaches.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This life is hell and heaven and 8 other worlds, all in one. That is what Nichiren Buddhism teaches.

I can agree with that.

Are you a Buddhist, shaky? Buddhists and Christians have very different ideas about the world and the purpose of it. It's my personal belief that this world is not hell. It's imperfect and sometimes sucks, but there is so much here for us to enjoy and God gives us so many resources here that it just can't be hell imo. Hell, in my definition, is eternal suffering and I'm not eternally suffering nor feel a separation from God here.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Are you a Buddhist, shaky? Buddhists and Christians have very different ideas about the world and the purpose of it. It's my personal belief that this world is not hell. It's imperfect and sometimes sucks, but there is so much here for us to enjoy and God gives us so many resources here that it just can't be hell imo. Hell, in my definition, is eternal suffering and I'm not eternally suffering nor feel a separation from God here.
I understand that. However the idea that Hell is a state of mind is useful in everyday life, and is fundamentally different then the Hell you are talking about. However, I enjoy watching the kids squirm and twitch when I say this life is Hell.

Oh believe me, it can feel that way, and I do believe we can create our own private hell through our obsessions and bad decisions.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Oh believe me, it can feel that way, and I do believe we can create our own private hell through our obsessions and bad decisions.

Then you might be interested in the Ten Worlds. You can use the concept as a philosophy, and not as a religion. I will pm you a link, only if you are interested.

* we can create our own private hell through our obsessions and bad decisions, true... but just a question, do we really have to be that pessimistic?

I don't find it that pessimistic a statement. It's just a possibility. The best way to avoid a personal hell is to learn from your past experiences and change your behavior. Our own thoughts and involvement can lead to great things, but as soon as something becomes an obsession, it's no longer a good thing for you.

I agree with the above three posts

I have mixed feelings on this tonic.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I have mixed feelings on this tonic. I have a mixed gin tonic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have a mixed gin tonic.

That was golden!

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I don't find it that pessimistic a statement. It's just a possibility.

* it really is a possibility... but your mind is very clouded, dark and pessimistic, for you in a state to might even think creating your own private hell...

Originally posted by willofthewisp
The best way to avoid a personal hell is to learn from your past experiences and change your behavior. Our own thoughts and involvement can lead to great things, but as soon as something becomes an obsession, it's no longer a good thing for you.

* agreed... and i might add: learn to see opportunity in every calamity... not the other way around...

Psalm 139, 1 Ki 8 and Jer 23 all confirm that the Bible says that God is omnipresent. The Bible also makes a distinction between creaton and the Creator. This is a paradox! How can God be everywhere, and yet there exist a place where He is absent? God must be simultaneously both absent and present. How can this be? There must exist multiple dimensions/worlds that overlap each other. I can think of 4 such worlds spoken of in scripture: the infinite, where God is fully revealed, heaven, where God is more fully revealed than here on earth, earth, the primary place of our current experience, and hell, the place where the revelation of God is more hidden than on earth. So, although it may seem that God is not there, He is, but His presence is hidden. This concept of God hiding and revealing His presence is shown in the creation story, where we read that God is there (in 1 Jn we read that God is light), and yet the darkness is mentioned before the light. King Solomon in 1 Ki 8 & 2 Ch 6 explains that God covers Himself with darkness. Water seperates land, yet can be traveled through by boat. The "deep" (subteranean water in Hebrew) and the "waters" spoken of in the creation story represent a portal (Jesus) that exists between the worlds. It is interesting to note that "Moses" means "drawn out" (remember how Pharoahs daughter drew Moses out of the water), and that God, through Moses, seperated the waters of the Red Sea. There is a lot to this. God has shown me this. If you can shed any more light on this matter, please post. I'm trying to get a better understanding on the nature of our existence within reality. Thanks!

Originally posted by havedominion
Psalm 139, 1 Ki 8 and Jer 23 all confirm that the Bible says that God is omnipresent. The Bible also makes a distinction between creaton and the Creator. This is a paradox! How can God be everywhere, and yet there exist a place where He is absent? God must be simultaneously both absent and present. How can this be? There must exist multiple dimensions/worlds that overlap each other. I can think of 4 such worlds spoken of in scripture: the infinite, where God is fully revealed, heaven, where God is more fully revealed than here on earth, earth, the primary place of our current experience, and hell, the place where the revelation of God is more hidden than on earth. So, although it may seem that God is not there, He is, but His presence is hidden. This concept of God hiding and revealing His presence is shown in the creation story, where we read that God is there (in 1 Jn we read that God is light), and yet the darkness is mentioned before the light. King Solomon in 1 Ki 8 & 2 Ch 6 explains that God covers Himself with darkness. Water seperates land, yet can be traveled through by boat. The "deep" (subteranean water in Hebrew) and the "waters" spoken of in the creation story represent a portal (Jesus) that exists between the worlds. It is interesting to note that "Moses" means "drawn out" (remember how Pharoahs daughter drew Moses out of the water), and that God, through Moses, seperated the waters of the Red Sea. There is a lot to this. God has shown me this. If you can shed any more light on this matter, please post. I'm trying to get a better understanding on the nature of our existence within reality. Thanks!
Why should there be a multiplicity of existence when there could be only one?

What do you mean by "multiplicity of existence"?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should there be a multiplicity of existence when there could be only one?

What do you mean by "multiplicity of existence"?

If everything is God's essence, why should any differences exist at all? Why should there be "four realms" when it could have been uniform?

Originally posted by King Kandy
If everything is God's essence, why should any differences exist at all? Why should there be "four realms" when it could have been uniform?

God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet, God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.

Originally posted by havedominion
God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet, God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.
Why would God create a fragmented universe when he could create a uniform one?

Originally posted by King Kandy
If everything is God's essence, why should any differences exist at all? Why should there be "four realms" when it could have been uniform?

God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. Perhaps it is possible for all of the dimesions to overlap and form a "uniform" dimension. I don't know, but, if that is the case, and my true existence is in more than one dimension (which I do believe), then, I am not always conscience of my experiences within the other dimension(s). If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would God create a fragmented universe when he could create a uniform one?

Assuming that it is possible for a creator to create something without there being any distinction between the creator and that which was created, I have no clue how He would do it, especially since the world of my everyday conscience experiences is built upon space-time, and even if part of the creator is bound by space-time, certainly not all of Him is bound. You are not God! There is a distinction. God does not lie. Have you ever told a lie? By the fact that you use the word "God" as a "creator" who is creating something - a universe - you admit that there's a distinction.

Originally posted by havedominion
Assuming that it is possible for a creator to create something without there being any distinction between the creator and that which was created, I have no clue how He would do it, especially since the world of my everyday conscience experiences is built upon space-time, and even if part of the creator is bound by space-time, certainly not all of Him is bound. You are not God! There is a distinction. God does not lie. Have you ever told a lie? By the fact that you use the word "God" as a "creator" who is creating something - a universe - you admit that there's a distinction.
You're the one who introduced this terminology; it's only fair for the sake of meaningful conversation that I share your lexicon.

I recognize that creation is distinct and fragmented. If God's essence is uniform and omnipresent, there is no conceivable reason for creation to be that way. I can only conclude that either God does not exist, or God is not omnipresent.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps this overall scenario, this all-encompassing process (an infinite regression?), could be the "ultimate form" of God. The "ultimate form" is omnipresent, but perhaps not the lesser manifestations.

Wow.

What a refreshing take on that.

A holistic definition of "super-God", I guess.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should there be a multiplicity of existence when there could be only one?

Highlander?


Originally posted by havedominion
God is perfect. Yet I experience imperfection. I conclude, as the Holy Bible confirms, that there MUST exist a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet God, being omnipresent, must exist everywhere. This is a paradox, that as I see it, can only be explained by the existence of multiple dimensions. Perhaps it is possible for all of the dimesions to overlap and form a "uniform" dimension. I don't know, but, if that is the case, and my true existence is in more than one dimension (which I do believe), then, I am not always conscience of my experiences within the other dimension(s). If you have another explanation, or if you think that my logic is faulty, please let me know.

This is very similar to a theory I have about the nature of man: our "reality" is actually a 4 dimensional "shadow" being cast by a 10 or 11 dimensional "light." That "light" is God. We are actually beings that have a 7 to 11 dimensional perception, with God, because we are His children, but in order to increase or understanding of our perceptions in that 10 or 11 dimensions, we must by "projected" to a very restrictive plane of existence.

We could actually have a near infinite # of projections taking place, all of them instant to our higher selves.

Edit - That fits, to some extent, with the "higher consciousness" idea that some have, but is a tad more complex. It's more of a converged idea than an original one of my own.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Highlander?
lol, maybe. But this is a serious question. I think it's a huge flaw in the "existence is the essence of God" line of thinking.

Originally posted by King Kandy
lol, maybe. But this is a serious question. I think it's a huge flaw in the "existence is the essence of God" line of thinking.

There should be only one to our self ...except ...in the multi-verses that we are exactly like ourselves: then it's like looking into a mirror in the deepest way possible: not even the most rigorous methods of science could distinguish the two copies from the multiverse. However, simply removing the individuals and testing them would create additional variables and would taint the samples, resulting in false-positives for differences.

Uhhh...does that make sense?


There would be alternate selves that would differ, ever so slightly, to our perceptions, of course. But there would be a very large number that no testing would result in legit differences. This just fits the often stated 'near infinite' number of universes theorizes to exist in one multiverse. The difference between one multiverse and another could be the lack of one quark or the presecence of an anti-quark because the laws of thermodynamics only have to apply to the "closed" system of each universe: this is why it's pratically infinite.

But, you are probably speaking about something else, now.

This may seem tautological, but, isn't it actually "The essence of God is existence?" I see it as that way. Again, you may mean something different than what I'm understanding of your point. Please elaborate if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There should be only one to our self ...except ...in the multi-verses that we are exactly like ourselves: then it's like looking into a mirror in the deepest way possible: not even the most rigorous methods of science could distinguish the two copies from the multiverse. However, simply removing the individuals and testing them would create additional variables and would taint the samples, resulting in false-positives for differences.

Uhhh...does that make sense?
No, not even slightly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There would be alternate selves that would differ, ever so slightly, to our perceptions, of course. But there would be a very large number that no testing would result in legit differences. This just fits the often stated 'near infinite' number of universes theorizes to exist in one multiverse. The difference between one multiverse and another could be the lack of one quark or the presecence of an anti-quark because the laws of thermodynamics only have to apply to the "closed" system of each universe: this is why it's pratically infinite.

But, you are probably speaking about something else, now.
That may be true, but i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may seem tautological, but, isn't it actually "The essence of God is existence?" I see it as that way. Again, you may mean something different than what I'm understanding of your point. Please elaborate if I'm wrong.
No, the way I said it was correct for what I was trying to get across. My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything. That was basically the point I was trying to raise.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, the way I said it was correct for what I was trying to get across. My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything. That was basically the point I was trying to raise.

That's a terrible argument. A human being is made of many different part but when you look at them you're looking at the stuff of humanity.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, not even slightly.


That may be true, but i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what I was saying.


No, the way I said it was correct for what I was trying to get across. My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything. That was basically the point I was trying to raise.

Okay, I understand you, now.

I thought you were commenting on the multiverse with your multiplicity comment and things about "being one." If we assume a multiverse, then there are "copies" of ourselves out there. There would also be practically an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. There would be so many "copies" of ourselves that we would encounter versions that would not be different, at all, from our current selves. In that regard, I thought you meant that all copies of ourselves should be "one" essence/being, from a holistic perspective. There are those that believe that and they believe we can communicate, indirectly, with our other selves. This is what I thought you meant by "one" and multiplicity.

About the rest of your post, yes, that's what most Christians believe: Jesus Christ created the universe and his "light" is in everything, including our selves. You can replace "light" with 'essence'.

And, yeah, there would be differences between everything. We each have our own self. This would be similar to an artist creating many sculptures: sure, the artist's style may be seen in each sculpture, but the sculpture is not the artist: they are definitely two separate entities. But, taking a step back, one could view that sculptor's life's work and say that the sum of his works partially define the previous sculpture I mentioned as well as the sculptor. They could then put together everything he said, did, made, etc. and say that the sum of those parts mostly makes him up. But, still, the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole, imo: he is still greater, holistically, than the sum of his parts.


This is similar to how I would view God and his Son: they are much much greater than the sum of the parts that we can perceive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a terrible argument. A human being is made of many different part but when you look at them you're looking at the stuff of humanity.
No, that's my point. Obviously the universe is composed of many different parts, but if God deliberately created the universe from himself, why would he choose a fragmented design? There's no logic to that. In fact there's no reason someone omnipresent should create anything at all; its not like he'd be making something different when its all just him anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon
About the rest of your post, yes, that's what most Christians believe: Jesus Christ created the universe and his "light" is in everything, including our selves. You can replace "light" with 'essence'.

And, yeah, there would be differences between everything. We each have our own self. This would be similar to an artist creating many sculptures: sure, the artist's style may be seen in each sculpture, but the sculpture is not the artist: they are definitely two separate entities. But, taking a step back, one could view that sculptor's life's work and say that the sum of his works partially define the previous sculpture I mentioned as well as the sculptor. They could then put together everything he said, did, made, etc. and say that the sum of those parts mostly makes him up. But, still, the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole, imo: he is still greater, holistically, than the sum of his parts.
One could definitely say that an artist is present in his work, but it would not be in a literal sense. If the artist literally WAS his work, and was omnipresent in his work, then there wouldn't be a distinction between him and his work. This isn't an argument against God in general, but it is an argument against someone who believes the sort of pantheism that was implicit in havedominion's arguments.

I don't see how Pantheism can be a functional belief. At best, it is just obfuscation of language, at worst it is self contradictory and nonsensical.

Originally posted by King Kandy
One could definitely say that an artist is present in his work, but it would not be in a literal sense. If the artist literally WAS his work, and was omnipresent in his work, then there wouldn't be a distinction between him and his work. This isn't an argument against God in general, but it is an argument against someone who believes the sort of pantheism that was implicit in havedominion's arguments.

I don't see how Pantheism can be a functional belief. At best, it is just obfuscation of language, at worst it is self contradictory and nonsensical.


We agree, there.

I do not think God or Jesus are truly omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent from logical assessments.

Also, profiled that last paragraph.

What, because I used big words?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What, because I used big words?

It's definitely pompous, peremptory, and supercilious. That, and it makes a damn good point (the real reason: eloquently making a good point in just a few words). Definitely worth remembering.

I can't wait to use it on James Cameron's arrogant face!

Originally posted by King Kandy
My point was, if God is omnipresent, then everything is composed of God's own essence... when you look at a rock, or a tree, you're literally looking at the stuff of God. And when everything is one with God, there's no reason why there should be any differences between anything. Oneness does not necessarily mean featurelessness...though there is a level to 'God' that is so unified there are no differences because there is no manifestation of form.

Originally posted by Mindship
Oneness does not necessarily mean featurelessness...though there is a level to 'God' that is so unified there are no differences because there is no manifestation of form.
Why would God not simply have that level be the only level?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would God not simply have that level be the only level? I suppose knowing that is what enlightenment is all about.

Originally posted by Mindship
I suppose knowing that is what enlightenment is all about.
Cop out. You could excuse any logical flaw in God's existence by saying "you just don't understand it". If it isn't falsifiable then its nonsense.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cop out. You could excuse any logical flaw in God's existence by saying "you just don't understand it". If it isn't falsifiable then its nonsense. Actually, I'm just saying I don't know, rather than offering some quaint metaphor, eg, God got bored. Technically (at least as I understood it), you were asking the Why of Creation. One can consider what the mystical and meditation literature has to say on the subject (bliss, formlessness, oneness, yada yada), or conclude as you did. I presented it only as a possible answer.

An omnipresent God being fragmented is an absurdity. I would say any religion proposing such a thing would be fighting an uphill battle.

Originally posted by King Kandy
An omnipresent God being fragmented is an absurdity. I would say any religion proposing such a thing would be fighting an uphill battle.

A few thousand years later, I don't think you can really still argue that it's all that "uphill".

Originally posted by skekUng
A few thousand years later, I don't think you can really still argue that it's all that "uphill".
The only person in this thread who believed in a truly 100% omnipresent god said it was a "paradox". That indicates to me that even Christians aren't too into the idea.

Originally posted by King Kandy
An omnipresent God being fragmented is an absurdity. I would say any religion proposing such a thing would be fighting an uphill battle. According to the m/m literature (mysticism/meditation), the fragmentation is an illusion.

Originally posted by Mindship
According to the m/m literature (mysticism/meditation), the fragmentation is an illusion.
Oh, that definitely proves it.

If everything is truly uniform then where could the illusion of fragmentation possibly originate from?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, that definitely proves it.

If everything is truly uniform then where could the illusion of fragmentation possibly originate from? I'm not offering this as proof, only how the issues presented in this thread might be addressed from a m/m POV.

'Uniform' is not the best word, as it implies sameness. Clearly, not everything is the same...but it is all connected. The illusion of fragmentation, of disconnect, comes from limited human perception, especially given our penchant for scientific analysis, ie, a systematic 'breaking things down'.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not offering this as proof, only how the issues presented in this thread might be addressed from a m/m POV.

'Uniform' is not the best word, as it implies sameness. Clearly, not everything is the same...but it is all connected. The illusion of fragmentation, of disconnect, comes from limited human perception, especially given our penchant for scientific analysis, ie, a systematic 'breaking things down'.
Why would everything not be the same and totally uniform?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would everything not be the same and totally uniform? Why are things the way they are? I myself don't rightly know. But if I understand correctly, one discovers why through advanced attention training, wherein the answer becomes obvious beyond words.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why are things the way they are? I myself don't rightly know. But if I understand correctly, one discovers why through advanced attention training, wherein the answer becomes obvious beyond words.
Once again, this is a cop out answer. If it can't be analyzed logically then why on earth would you try and base your logic on it?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Once again, this is a cop out answer. If it can't be analyzed logically then why on earth would you try and base your logic on it? Why is saying "I don't know," a "cop out"? Why is merely conveying what the m/m literature says (not presenting it as proof) a "cop out"? Why would you even expect me or anyone to be able to answer the question, Why are things the way they are? Why would you even ask that question to begin with since it's not the focus of this thread?

That aside...

It's been said that if a new paradigm ever takes hold, one which integrates mysticism with science (not as absurd as it sounds, since meditation is a systematic method for accessing mystical experience, whatever it may be), the heart of the paradigm will be paradox. And logic can't handle paradox. Which means one of two things...
1. You disregard what the m/m literature has to say on the subject; after all, if it can't be logically analyzed, it must be untrue...
- OR -
2. You accept that logic has its limits, and another mode of knowing is required, one that is acquired via attention training.

Clearly, you prefer option 1. That's cool. But to call what I've presented a cop out seems, well, like a cop out. If you disagree, you disagree. No problemo.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why is saying "I don't know," a "cop out"? Why is merely conveying what the m/m literature says (not presenting it as proof) a "cop out"? Why would you even expect me or anyone to be able to answer the question, Why are things the way they are? Why would you even ask that question to begin with since it's not the focus of this thread?

That aside...

It's been said that if a new paradigm ever takes hold, one which integrates mysticism with science (not as absurd as it sounds, since meditation is a systematic method for accessing mystical experience, whatever it may be), the heart of the paradigm will be paradox. And logic can't handle paradox. Which means one of two things...
1. You disregard what the m/m literature has to say on the subject; after all, if it can't be logically analyzed, it must be untrue...
- OR -
2. You accept that logic has its limits, and another mode of knowing is required, one that is acquired via attention training.

Clearly, you prefer option 1. That's cool. But to call what I've presented a cop out seems, well, like a cop out. If you disagree, you disagree. No problemo.
Taking LSD consistently causes mystical experiences. More than meditation. How do we qualify if something is really a mystical experience or just nonsense? And if we know that meditation helps with mysticism, we only know that because of logic anyway (inductive reasoning); the very argument you gave here that meditation consistently causes these experiences is a logic based argument.

The person I responded to here was saying that he could PROVE there was a multiverse because of God's omnipresence... any defense of that line of logic is just completely ludicrous and I don't see why you keep trying to prolong that conversation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Taking LSD consistently causes mystical experiences. More than meditation. How do we qualify if something is really a mystical experience or just nonsense? And if we know that meditation helps with mysticism, we only know that because of logic anyway (inductive reasoning); the very argument you gave here that meditation consistently causes these experiences is a logic based argument.A person does not have substantial control over their attention when on LSD; there is actually less control than in ordinary consciousness. And tripping certainly does not bring one to the higher meditative stages, as evidenced by the continuing awareness of form (past studies have suggested there is not even 'archetypal-causal' awareness; one experiences only the 'dreaming' levels). An advanced meditator does have the necessary control, enabled through time and practice, for going 'all the way'. Further, these experiences -- whatever they may be -- are available to anyone if he/she is willing to put in the time and effort following a strict, consistent, instructional methodology.

The person I responded to here was saying that he could PROVE there was a multiverse because of God's omnipresence... any defense of that line of logic is just completely ludicrous and I don't see why you keep trying to prolong that conversation. I'm not that person. And again, I myself am not offering 'proof', just an alternative viewpoint, especially given that a lot of these redundant, merry-go-round God conversations involve the Biblical God, ie, the Biblical God metaphor taken way too literally. My thinking was, offering another POV might help to break that repetitiveness.

I think we are approaching this with 3 dimensional thinking.

If God is several reality planes (possibly an infinite number) above our own level of thinking, we are using 3D concepts to define something that just cant be logicked

like a beetle discussing dark matter or a brain tumor in elephants.

This is not a cop out, but how can we truly expect to understand and fully discuss a being of infinite scope with limited words and ideas?

Originally posted by Solidus Black
I think we are approaching this with 3 dimensional thinking.

If God is several reality planes (possibly an infinite number) above our own level of thinking, we are using 3D concepts to define something that just cant be logicked

like a beetle discussing dark matter or a brain tumor in elephants.

This is not a cop out, but how can we truly expect to understand and fully discuss a being of infinite scope with limited words and ideas? I've used the above ideas myself to illustrate the limits of our current understanding. However, this still is not proof. As I mentioned in a previous post, if logic is unable to fully grasp a supposedly divine entity, it could be because of what you said, OR, it could well be that said entity simply does not exist. And in all fairness to the truth (whatever it may be), the reductive-materialist model is in a much stronger position to state its case than the holistic-transcendent model. In this sense, King Kandy is right: for the transcendent model this is an uphill battle.

Originally posted by Mindship
I've used the above ideas myself to illustrate the limits of our current understanding. However, this still is not proof. As I mentioned in a previous post, if logic is unable to fully grasp a supposedly divine entity, it could be because of what you said, OR, it could well be that said entity simply does not exist. And in all fairness to the truth (whatever it may be), the reductive-materialist model is in a much stronger position to state its case than the holistic-transcendent model. In this sense, King Kandy is right: for the transcendent model this is an uphill battle.

We will always search for proof and as we become enlightened proof changes.

The caveman thought with fire taht they reached the pinnacle.

Hundreds of years ago, people thought heat came from a substance called caloric in iron

Pennicillin was another important discovery.

As was dark matter.

As we learn more and more, we should realize that in aggregate that there is less and less we truly know because every answer spawns hundreds of new queries.

That being said, i think we will never evolve towards God in a significant way where logic is involved. he is too abstract to ever be solved without a metaphysical equation.

There is no "proof" to be gotten and that is why people say taht one should have faith.

But i will agree. It is an uphill battle.

Originally posted by Solidus Black
We will always search for proof and as we become enlightened proof changes. What I find fascinating is that, theoretically, scientific method ('applied common sense') can be used to investigate transcendent realities (indeed, essentially it has been all along). One just has to be fair about it: the nature of the tools used and the data collected should be consistent with that of the phenomena being studied. Eg, one wouldn't use a microscope to verify a logical proof; neither should one use the LHC to seek 'heaven'.

Historically, traditionally, the appropriate tool has been meditation, and consistent methodical application over time and across cultures has produced reliable results. As for the validity of these results...I believe validity is also an issue with empirical science (if less so because phenomena is 'concrete'). Nonetheless, if an insight improves the quality of one's and others' lives, this suggests there's something to it. Moreso, one could use empirical science to support what is revealed through meditation. Eg, for thousands of years, mystical literature has claimed there is no self. Modern brain research appears to support this.

If there is a god and he is truly 100% omnipotent there would be no reason he is not also omnipresent.

You know, I'm going to have to change my answer again. I said before, that for them to fear it, they would have to be agnostic, but that just isn't the case. They might believe whole heartedly that there is no God, but, as is with any belief, there is always the chance that they are wrong. Their fear might not be very strong, and there might not be very many who feel this way, but I think that there are some who do fear the potential for a judgment.

oops, I posted this on the wrong forum. my bad.