What Created God

[freelight]

Hi all,

Divine BEING is Existence Itself. This Domain of Being exists independent of anything else. Pure Being has no cause. It is Self-Existent, the substrate or Ground/Space in which all fluxations of what appears to be caused phenomena takes place. The Eternal Ground of Being is the Core-Reality in which all seeming 'causality' transpires. Divine Being/Presence cannot be created for there is no Other than the ONE existing! What appears as cause/effect is phenomenal....transpiring in the world of dualism/relativity within finite dimensions bringing a linear perception into being. The Infinite non-linear Domain of Pure Existence is causeless.


Only a mind divorced from an innate and conscious knowledge of God as divine BEING caught within the throes of time and infantile concepts of 'God' would entertain the thought of God having been created by something or someone.





paul

 

[elman]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.

If God has always existed, He was not created. I agree that Aquinas' First Cause theory does not prove the existense of God.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Hi all,

Divine BEING is Existence Itself. This Domain of Being exists independent of anything else. Pure Being has no cause. It is Self-Existent, the substrate or Ground/Space in which all fluxations of what appears to be caused phenomena takes place. The Eternal Ground of Being is the Core-Reality in which all seeming 'causality' transpires. Divine Being/Presence cannot be created for there is no Other than the ONE existing! What appears as cause/effect is phenomenal....transpiring in the world of dualism/relativity within finite dimensions bringing a linear perception into being. The Infinite non-linear Domain of Pure Existence is causeless.


Only a mind divorced from an innate and conscious knowledge of God as divine BEING caught within the throes of time and infantile concepts of 'God' would entertain the thought of God having been created by something or someone.





paul

Never seen Advaita Vedanta explained more clearly.

My only misgiving with my own Advaita Vedanta is its clinging on to this 'divine' concept. May be it talks about the 'divine' from the day-to-day, dualistic point of view. Non-dual cannot be divine or evil or anything like that.

 

[freelight]

Never seen Advaita Vedanta explained more clearly.

My only misgiving with my own Advaita Vedanta is its clinging on to this 'divine' concept. May be it talks about the 'divine' from the day-to-day, dualistic point of view. Non-dual cannot be divine or evil or anything like that.

Hello Born!

Thanks for the comment - I have been meaning to study Advaita or non-dualism more...but not well versed in the traditional Vedenta sense of things. I have gleaned and gather my insights from many schools actually and write what comes to me. I see this field as 'theontology' (the study/science of the existence/being of 'God').

Naturally I look at God from a theontological view as 'divine Being'. I only use the word 'divine' to denote 'Deity' - the primal Being/Existence as this 'being' is God and all being therefore has its roots in primal Being. Perhaps 'God' is the nameless ONE, the All....and above all dualities/relativities (good/evil)...but traditionally we look to God as being 'good' in essence, intent and ultimatum. We can call the non-dual State or Original and Eternal Being 'God' if we so wish...for such is fitting with most understandings of 'God'.

I'm relatively new to this forum and trying to get enough posts to be able to participate in other thread-sections and other bennies. Perhaps you can start a thread on non-dualism(Advaita) and its implications in light of christian theology and views of God.



Blessings!




paul

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Hello Born!

Thanks for the comment - I have been meaning to study Advaita or non-dualism more...but not well versed in the traditional Vedenta sense of things. I have gleaned and gather my insights from many schools actually and write what comes to me. I see this field as 'theontology' (the study/science of the existence/being of 'God').

Naturally I look at God from a theontological view as 'divine Being'. I only use the word 'divine' to denote 'Deity' - the primal Being/Existence as this 'being' is God and all being therefore has its roots in primal Being. Perhaps 'God' is the nameless ONE, the All....and above all dualities/relativities (good/evil)...but traditionally we look to God as being 'good' in essence, intent and ultimatum. We can call the non-dual State or Original and Eternal Being 'God' if we so wish...for such is fitting with most understandings of 'God'.

I'm relatively new to this forum and trying to get enough posts to be able to participate in other thread-sections and other bennies. Perhaps you can start a thread on non-dualism(Advaita) and its implications in light of christian theology and views of God.



Blessings!




paul

Just so delighted to know that there is someone who holds exactly similar views as me.
I thought it could never happen.

I have already created threads on advaita philosophy, but there were no takers for it, not even my fellow Hindus, who seem to be more interested in milk-drinking Gods and Vedic aeroplanes!

The essence of Advaita can be explained to you, who is already initiated in such concepts, in three words...

Sat-Chit-Ananda---> Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

 

[martin75]

Some of the mystery religions put great importance to God's name similar to the biblical 'I am' of Yahweh
I think it is Aset or Isis that means 'I came from myself'
In a gnostic poem God says 'I am the utterance of my name'

In this view God wasn't created but could still be thought of as being born, but born from his own self of which we are an emanation since from this birth all things were eventually created. This isn't a moment in time but an on-going beingness

The duality that lets us says 'who created God' imagines we are outside of God looking in wondering who made him when we are not outside God but our seperate consciousnesses allow us to step outside momentarily (i.e. between our birth and eventual return)

One result of this is the holy spirit interacts with our consciousness in a symbiotic way. If one or the other dominates then the other ceases to exist in us

The heavenly Eve in some esoteric Christian groups represented the holy spirit in the believers soul, so she could say
'I am in the process of becoming, yet I have given birth to a man as my lord'
Meaning she is divine beingness and everlasting life and in the human she is born and herself gives birth to a man who is lord over her. Yet the man 'our own consciousness' is her father and she gives birth to him in an everlasting moment
She will never dominate the man but the man can dominate her which is where evil comes from
The two in harmony make a personality existing in a state of grace

Martin

 

[Telephone]

It appears god does not exist.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

It appears god does not exist.

It appears as if God exists.

 

[Telephone]

It appears as if God exists.

No, really, it is a myth.

 

[elman]

No, really, it is a myth.

And how do you know that?

 

[quatona]

And how do you know that?

BINGO!

 

[elman]

BINGO!

Quatona, my friend it always worries me when you agree with me---just kidding.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, my friend it always worries me when you agree with me---just kidding.

No, honestly: I think it is a good question, and there are many claims that can be countered with it. Even such that are meant seriously.

 

[Telephone]

And how do you know that?

It is defined as such.

myth: a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

No, really, it is a myth.

Which is a myth?

If it is God, I agree.

If it is my statement, I don't.

 

[Telephone]

Which is a myth?

If it is God, I agree.

If it is my statement, I don't.

All gods.

 

[elman]

It is defined as such.

myth: a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

So are you defining myth as being possibly true or always untrue? This definition you are giving does not deal with that issue.

 

[Flatscan82]

Many people justify their Christian beliefs by using Aquinas' First Cause theory. This states that something must have started off the Universe. Even the Big Bang, must have been started by something, and that, is God.

But following this line of logic, God must have been created by something or someone. It makes no sense to argue that there must be a God using the First Cause Theory, because God, being part of existence, could well have been created.

And if there was indeed a first cause, why need this be God?

I am a Christian, yet I have a problem with this line of argument.

because god is not contingent on this universus. god is the un-moved mover

 

[SaintAugustine]

God is not an effect..therefore he needs no cause.

Aristotle referred to God as the Unmoved Prime Mover.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

God is not an effect..therefore he needs no cause.

God is an effect, of mankind's collective mind.

Aristotle referred to God as the Unmoved Prime Mover.

Cool.