What is God?

[lost999]

Nobody knows what God is, besides the Creator.

Everything else is speculation.

 

[Golden Yak]

I've been told God is love.

So the title of this thread is really "What is Love?"

youtube.com/watch?v=09m0B8RRiEE&feature=youtu.be

 

[juvenissun]

I've been told God is love.

So the title of this thread is really "What is Love?"

The answer is also simple: if you do not know God, then you do not know love.

You have to start somewhere. You can love (can't you?), so you do that and hope you can see God from there. If to love is hard to you, then you may start with God.

 

[bhsmte]

Nobody knows what God is, besides the Creator.

Everything else is speculation.

Assuming a God exists, I can live with that.

Could be why, there are so many different interpretations of what God is and what he isn't, because people tend to shape God the way they like.

 

[bhsmte]

The answer is also simple: if you do not know God, then you do not know love.

You have to start somewhere. You can love (can't you?), so you do that and hope you can see God from there. If to love is hard to you, then you may start with God.

Believers than have a monopoly on love too huh?

Cool.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

God is infinite, eternal, and living. Solid, real substance...the original substance. Everything you see and touch in the universe is 99.99999999% not solid but "holographic" in nature. The image of God lofted into existence within a real Infinity (the body of God).

Who God is, is what God imparts personally.

What God is, is actually very very simple, it is we who are complex.


The body of God, before the beginning, takes up all space and has no border, thus no image can ever be made of it. But it can be logistically reasoned to exist and the resulting self expression that creates infinite universes in it's wake can be geometrically mapped. This is why "The Name" of God is said to be so important. Because it literally spells out a universe.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Let me try to break this down:

God is infinite, eternal, and living.

Infinite in what? Spatial extent?

In most contexts, "living" implies biological life. In what sense does a non-biological entity "live"? Does God breathe? Metabolize nutrients for energy? Use ATP?

Solid, real substance...the original substance.

Solid?

What is real substance? What is the opposite of real substance? Non-real substance? Isn't substance, by definition, real?

Everything you see and touch in the universe is 99.99999999% not solid but "holographic" in nature.

Its true, atoms are primarily empty space. We only feel like they are solid because of physical forces exerted on our hands when we touch a table. I'm not sure if that makes the universe "holographic".

The image of God lofted into existence within a real Infinity (the body of God).

I have no idea what this means. Sorry.

Who God is, is what God imparts personally.

What God is, is actually very very simple, it is we who are complex.


The body of God, before the beginning, takes up all space and has no border, thus no image can ever be made of it. But it can be logistically reasoned to exist and the resulting self expression that creates infinite universes in it's wake can be geometrically mapped. This is why "The Name" of God is said to be so important. Because it literally spells out a universe.

I'm confused.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Let me try to break this down:



Infinite in what? Spatial extent?

Yes. Spatially infinite. This yields 3 specific infnite spatial relationships it has with itself: All around equally in all directions, at the center of itself a all points, and throughout itself equally as One. It also has one energetic relationship with itself: Flat. There is no higher or lower level of excitation anywhere. This is before the creation of the metaverse.

In most contexts, "living" implies biological life. In what sense does a non-biological entity "live"? Does God breathe? Metabolize nutrients for energy? Use ATP?

Living in that God is conscious and can reproduce itself. It requires no extra energy or matter to do so, just sacrifice of space. The creation of a universe is described as an opening of the mouth (Egyptian) and a out-breath/spoke Word of God (Judeo-Christain). Interestingly, in order to breath out, our diaphragm flattens.

Because God's energetic self relationship is flat, the wave form expression of the infinite particle (Body of God) is a flat plane of spheres (universes)...that keeps re-creating them as an interational FCC sphere stack. The "Word" is still creating these planes every quantum moment, and stabilizing all previous ones as a contractile upwards flow around the universe spheres.

Solid?

What is real substance? What is the opposite of real substance? Non-real substance? Isn't substance, by definition, real?

Its true, atoms are primarily empty space. We only feel like they are solid because of physical forces exerted on our hands when we touch a table. I'm not sure if that makes the universe "holographic".

Solidand "real" meaning taking up all space as a quark matter ocean. No space not taken up by quarks and gluons. Quark matter is an infinitely super-conductive Fermi liquid trillions of time hotter and denser than atomic "waveform holographic" matter. It is also more stable that atomic matter.

If you could touch a stabilized ball of quark matter (aside from being gravitationally yanked into it), you would be consumed in a microsecond heat death as all your atoms and even nuclei collapse without so much as a puff of smoke.

I have no idea what this means. Sorry.

It's quite alright. Infinity can be an uncomfortable place if not accustomed to it. We can take it step by step. =)

I'm confused.

Ask me a specific question and I will give you a specific answer if I am able.

 

[Davian]

God is infinite, eternal, and living. Solid, real substance...the original substance. Everything you see and touch in the universe is 99.99999999% not solid but "holographic" in nature. The image of God lofted into existence within a real Infinity (the body of God).

Who God is, is what God imparts personally.

What God is, is actually very very simple, it is we who are complex.


The body of God, before the beginning, takes up all space and has no border, thus no image can ever be made of it. But it can be logistically reasoned to exist and the resulting self expression that creates infinite universes in it's wake can be geometrically mapped. This is why "The Name" of God is said to be so important. Because it literally spells out a universe.

Word salad.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Word salad.

= "I don't understand, default to ridicule."

 

[Davian]

= "I don't understand, default to ridicule."

lol. I saw your response to leftrightleftrightleft. It seems even you don't understand it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Nobody knows what God is, besides the Creator.

Everything else is speculation.

that's really pretty good !

(as Torah says plain "Yhvh is spirit" - but no one knows what 'spirit' is , do they !? )
just get to accept Him by faith in Yahshua, or reject Him. i.e. live, or die.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

lol. I saw your response to leftrightleftrightleft. It seems even you don't understand it.

You do not understand it therefor you default to ridicule.

I understand it up, down, and sideways and can re-explain it to you from a variety of perspectives...that is if you can form a legitimate question.

 

[Davian]

You do not understand it therefor you default to ridicule.

You are mistaken. My default was to read it and try to make sense of it.

I understand it up, down, and sideways and can re-explain it to you from a variety of perspectives...that is if you can form a legitimate question.

Explain how the contents of that post are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

that's really pretty good !

(as Torah says plain "Yhvh is spirit" - but no one knows what 'spirit' is , do they !? )
just get to accept Him by faith in Yahshua, or reject Him. i.e. live, or die.

Spirit is living consciousness and all virtues. Faith is substance and evidence of things invisible, a gift from God of God, not man made "super strong" belief.

1 Tim 2:3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

That is the desire of the Almighty Eternal Father.

John 17:20 20"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;…


That is the prayer to The Father from The Son.


Opposed to these are the various ignorant thoughts and actions of temporal man. Who's desires will last and be fulfilled? 2/3 of the Godhead or mortal man?

Psalms 22:28For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations. 29All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

You are mistaken. My default was to read it and try to make sense of it.

Explain how the contents of that post are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

You need to ask a specific question to get a specific answer. I'm not going to dance all over creation and back explaining things from paradigms you have yet to consider and waste my time. I cannot show you things from where I am, I can only move you from where you are.

So pick something specific you take issue with and we'll explore it together.

 

[Davian]

You need to ask a specific question to get a specific answer. I'm not going to dance all over creation and back explaining things from paradigms you have yet to consider and waste my time. I cannot show you things from where I am, I can only move you from where you are.

So pick something specific you take issue with and we'll explore it together.

Stick with that one post. Explain how the contents of that post are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Stick with that one post. Explain how the contents of that post are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

The big bang is an unevidenced, unfasifiable assertion: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.



So you have the big bang theory (perspective) which postulates the singularity is monocentric, finite and when mathmaticians try to cram all space-time and matter into an infinitesimally small point, all known laws of math and physics breakdown. It does not explain dark energy, dark matter, or the appearent matter/anti-matter asymmetry.

Where as in the great contraction theory (perspective), the singularity is postulated to be omni-centric and infinite. It geometrically predicts the dark energy constant to within .3%, dark matter to within .6% and matter/anti-matter symmetry in super-symmetric bends of space time. It predicts a rapid initial inflationary period that stops followed by a long slow plateau of space-time expansion. It accounts for the fine tuning of this universe and all universes as a self-limiting holographic wavefront. It even geometrically describes the subatomic bosonic relationships as governed by return flow of the infinite substance (quark matter) around the contact points between spheres.



So you can work from one perspective that leaves a great deal of questions, or another that answers them. The great contraction theory is more simple, elegant and much more accurately predictive of universal phenomenon than the big bang theory.

This is how one scientific theory replaces another.


Do you have any specific logistic questions?

 

[Davian]

The big bang is an unevidenced, unfasifiable assertion: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.



So you have the big bang theory (perspective) which postulates the singularity is monocentric, finite and when mathmaticians try to cram all space-time and matter into an infinitesimally small point, all known laws of math and physics breakdown. It does not explain dark energy, dark matter, or the appearent matter/anti-matter asymmetry.

Where as in the great contraction theory (perspective), the singularity is postulated to be omni-centric and infinite. It geometrically predicts the dark energy constant to within .3%, dark matter to within .6% and matter/anti-matter symmetry in super-symmetric bends of space time. It predicts a rapid initial inflationary period that stops followed by a long slow plateau of space-time expansion. It accounts for the fine tuning of this universe and all universes as a self-limiting holographic wavefront. It even geometrically describes the subatomic bosonic relationships as governed by return flow of the infinite substance (quark matter) around the contact points between spheres.



So you can work from one perspective that leaves a great deal of questions, or another that answers them. The great contraction theory is more simple, elegant and much more accurately predictive of universal phenomenon than the big bang theory.

This is how one scientific theory replaces another.


Do you have any specific logistic questions?

Yes. Post #46: Explain how the contents of that post are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Yes. Post #46: Explain how the contents of that post are testable and falsifiable, and not simply evidenced assertions.

Did you not read the statement by the university of Oregon department of physics that the beginning condition of the universe is untestable? And that confidence is placed in theories that are more simple, aesthetic and accurate predictive of later universal phenomenon?

What hope can machine based evidence science alone ever have for understanding what is beyond the CMB and before the inflation of the universe? It cannot and will forever remain in the dark because it is not equipped to handle these things. It is fundamentally tied to the effects of causes and does not address the causes themselves.

So I chose the theory that is not only consistent with most all ancient sciences and religions (a division of an infinite) but gives me a dark energy value within .3% of modern estimates and a dark matter value within .6%. I chose it because it predicts all the subatomic particle/boson spin/charge relationships and explains why we and everything around us is made of the lightest type of matter charge atoms. 1 of 6 types the universe is capable of rendering stable. All of this by self relative geometry alone.

I chose it over a very recent theory (big bang) that has little to no historic corroboration, that turns all physics and mathematics into nonsense when man tries to smash all space-time and matter into an infinitesimally small finite point.

So either all physics and mathematics are wrong, or the fundamental premise, that by science's own definition is unfalsifiable and untestable (big bang theory) is wrong.

Every time you have been shone the "Big Bang" you have been lied to. The nothing space that the singularity is always shone to expand/explode into by the logic of the theory does not exist. There is no space outside the singularity, the only valid point of perspective is inside it. And it is not finite, it has no border.

The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe

Although space may have been concentrated into a single point at the Big Bang, it is equally possible that space was infinite at the Big Bang. In both scenarios the space was completely filled with matter which began to expand.


Expand how? A single void space bubble universe? What's to stabilize it and keep it from collapsing back into not existing? The universe is not created ex nihilo, it is the nihilo created in a very specific, very logical, very geometric mathematical way. As a waveform expression of the original infinite "particle" as a self limiting, holographic, cavitational wavefront. Look up "sono-luminescence" for the testable physical mechanism.

If you need evidence in order to start thinking logically and mathematically to see for yourself how all current scientific evidence lines up and most current scientific mysteries very elegantly and simply answered with this theory, then I cannot help you.



You know that whole "imagination is more important than knowledge" quote by Einstein? Read it again.