A thought about God

[Robin.]

I was thinking this earlier today what are your thoughts?:

Lets say that before everything else there was only God
If God then created everything else
Then can it not be said that everything is simply a part of god
Because this "everything else" is essentially an extension of a part of God
If he created the "everything else" from his physical body then the "everything else" would leterally be a divesion of himself
If on the other hand the "everything else" was made from nothing or magic or whatever, then the "everything else" would essentially be an extension of himself, not so much of his physical self but as if making a non physical part of himself, the thought, a physical thing.

And then if God is all powerful.. then even if by some reasoning it could be said that "everything else" is not a part of God. Then it could be argued that because God has the power to make "everything else" the same as it is but a part of himself, it essentialy is.


Wierd thinking, anyways this is a justification I thought of for pantheism. Not that I am pantheist...I'm just a thinker...I don't believe I think...

[Unconditional Acceptance]

Hm...very interesting thoughts; I had not thought of Creation as a physical or abstract extension of God. Definitely a good topic for discussion or friendly debate.

Personally, I tend to believe that God made "everything else", as you say, the way that seemed to work the best.
But, that's just me 

[Miniar]

A little spiritual solipsism there.

It's a viable hypothesis, assuming existence of "god".

[Unconditional Acceptance]

A little spiritual solipsism there.

What does "solipsism" mean? 

[Miniar]

What does "solipsism" mean? 

It's a philosophical "theory" based on "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefore I am).
Essentially, the one and only thing you can ever know with certainty is that your mind exists.
Solipsism takes this a step further and theorizes that your mind is the only thing that exists. As such, everything is contained within one mind. We are all the same person, we are all the same "thing".
Everything is everything is only one thing, a one mind.

[Chloe]

Wierd thinking, anyways this is a justification I thought of for pantheism. Not that I am pantheist...I'm just a thinker...I don't believe I think...

lol Robin, do us all a favor and DON'T THINK!  A relationship with "God" is something you have to "Experience" . . .

[sarahb]

lol Robin, do us all a favor and DON'T THINK!  A relationship with "God" is something you have to "Experience" . . .

Exactly. A relationship with god is whatever you want it to be. If you want it to be a relationship where you use this god to serve your own hateful purpose, so be it. If you want to use this god to serve a good purpose, so be it. God is not an entity, it is a belief, and beliefs can be whatever you want them to be. There's no point in asking others questions about god, since theirs will be their idea of a god, and possibly different from yours.

~Sarah

[Robin.]

lol Robin, do us all a favor and DON'T THINK!  A relationship with "God" is something you have to "Experience" . . .

I don't think I have the option not to think.
Post Merge: November 20, 2009, 02:27:37 PM

It's a philosophical "theory" based on "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefore I am).
Essentially, the one and only thing you can ever know with certainty is that your mind exists.
Solipsism takes this a step further and theorizes that your mind is the only thing that exists. As such, everything is contained within one mind. We are all the same person, we are all the same "thing".
Everything is everything is only one thing, a one mind.

I dunno that solipsism realy fits. The theory I proposed itself would imply that we are not all the same person or thing but rather devisions of a single thing. As for my statement "I don't believe I think" that is more to imply that I am somewhat of a fallabilist, I might even go so far as to question weather my mind actualy "exists", considering that in itself "existance" is a mental concept...

Hmm, another thought... Consider "Everything" as in containing even God, perhaps this "Everything" is infinite but thats not important I guess. If Everything contains even God then would it as a whole not be greater than God? And for it not to be greater then God then would it not have to simply be God?
Post Merge: November 20, 2009, 04:33:01 PM
P.S. I don't know that my use of quotations are the accepted use, but I find it necassary to use them to seperate concepts or something. I tend to use things like quotations and what not as I plz, sorta like poetry the accepted diction is not always neccassary.... over standardization prevents creative and cognitive expansion, to a degree at the least.

[Miniar]

we are not all the same person or thing but rather divisions of a single thing

That's a form of/way of seeing solipsism.

[K8]

Robin, I think what you describe is essentially pantheism - God is in everything and everything is part of God.  A rock and a tree are both God.  They appear to be divisible parts, but they each contain the whole. 

I'm not sure that I'm a pantheist, but I don't believe in an intentional God - God as separate and pulling the strings, so to speak.  I believe in life and in existance.  The "system" that is life and existance, of which we are a part, could be termed God if you choose, but it also means that we are all part of it.  I believe in the process that is what we experience and of which we are a part.  I don't understand a separate entity called "God" that is outside of us.

I don't think I'm a solipsist, because I believe that an essential part of solipsism is that other minds don't exist.  I think other minds exist but that we are all part of the same thing.
 
Just my 2¢.

- Kate

[Dryad]

A nice example of Solipsism in religion is the Great Dreamer mythologies, where reality isn't really real, but we all exist in the dream of a deity, up to the point where we 'wake up' and separate ourselves from the dream. (Die.)

But Robin, I have to say: Kudos! The thoughts you have aren't all that uncommon. Among western European Christians, it's probably the most common belief, even, at this moment.

[fluffy jorgen]

I have seen and felt things I'd describe as Godlike but never seen or felt God.

Everything is just mollecules that once came together, is all, they can be looked upon under a microscope of science (as God upon under a microscope of mind) and that's the fascination,
whether you call it God or not.

And that's my 2¢ as Kate said.

[NessaJ]

Well this seems to be the only way that makes sense given the idea that nothing can come from nothing

[darkshine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

I came across this a few years ago. It may not give any ideas on most of your questions, but definately give you something to think about when people say everything is a part of God, or God is in all of us

[jainie marlena]

I was thinking this earlier today what are your thoughts?:

Lets say that before everything else there was only God
If God then created everything else
Then can it not be said that everything is simply a part of god
Because this "everything else" is essentially an extension of a part of God
If he created the "everything else" from his physical body then the "everything else" would leterally be a divesion of himself
If on the other hand the "everything else" was made from nothing or magic or whatever, then the "everything else" would essentially be an extension of himself, not so much of his physical self but as if making a non physical part of himself, the thought, a physical thing.

And then if God is all powerful.. then even if by some reasoning it could be said that "everything else" is not a part of God. Then it could be argued that because God has the power to make "everything else" the same as it is but a part of himself, it essentialy is.


Wierd thinking, anyways this is a justification I thought of for pantheism. Not that I am pantheist...I'm just a thinker...I don't believe I think...

"In him we both move and have our being"

[Maddie Secutura]

We know through the first law of thermodynamics that energy must be conserved within a closed system, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  The key is "within a closed system."  It is entirely possible that the universe itself is not a closed system.  The fact that the bulk of the universe is comprised of dark energy, a term which means we don't know what the heck it is but it accounts for observed expansion, is just one example of this.  We don't know what lies beyond our universe as it has no meaning to us.  We can only observe phenomena with in our own. 

But as far as a philosophical explanation of our origin is concerned, it makes the most logical sense to call the universe a creation with no creator.  For if we propose a creator as our origin, then it begs the question, who created the creator?   Of course the answer to that is no one, for he is the unmoved mover.  Why then must we accept this?  For a god would be considered something and you cannot get something from nothing.  Can we not say with equal veracity that our universe is an unmoved motion?  In so doing we arrive at the answer to the original question: everything else is not a part of god.

[Anatta]

Kia Ora,

" 'I' am just a 'thought' who 'thinks' 'I' am 'thinking' 'I' am just a 'thought' !"

Food for 'thought'

Metta Zenda