Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
possible definitions of God
1 view
Skip to first unread message
David Dalton
Feb 15, 2013, 10:44:27 PM2/15/13
to
If you use the name God without knowing how it is
defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
default to an organizational definition, there
could be a match, but it is best that you know
that definition.
With that in mind, how do you define God?
Some possibilities are:
1. the Creator
2. the all-powerful being
3. the personification of perfect love
4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
5. you default to an organizational definition
6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
and you might know of even more possibilities.
I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
Genesis uses 1 above.
I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
being can match both 2 and 3 above.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
default to an organizational definition, there
could be a match, but it is best that you know
that definition.
With that in mind, how do you define God?
Some possibilities are:
1. the Creator
2. the all-powerful being
3. the personification of perfect love
4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
5. you default to an organizational definition
6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
and you might know of even more possibilities.
I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
Genesis uses 1 above.
I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
being can match both 2 and 3 above.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
Truth and honesty
Feb 16, 2013, 6:15:56 AM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:14:27 -0330, David Dalton wrote:
> If you use the name God without knowing how it is
> defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
> default to an organizational definition, there
> could be a match, but it is best that you know
> that definition.
>
> With that in mind, how do you define God?
>
> Some possibilities are:
>
> 1. the Creator
> 2. the all-powerful being
> 3. the personification of perfect love
> 4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
> 5. you default to an organizational definition
> 6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
> 7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
>
> and you might know of even more possibilities.
>
> I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
> Genesis uses 1 above.
>
> I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
> for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
> deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
> all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
> both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
> being can match both 2 and 3 above.
It is difficult to have (1) and (7) together
> If you use the name God without knowing how it is
> defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
> default to an organizational definition, there
> could be a match, but it is best that you know
> that definition.
>
> With that in mind, how do you define God?
>
> Some possibilities are:
>
> 1. the Creator
> 2. the all-powerful being
> 3. the personification of perfect love
> 4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
> 5. you default to an organizational definition
> 6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
> 7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
>
> and you might know of even more possibilities.
>
> I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
> Genesis uses 1 above.
>
> I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
> for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
> deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
> all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
> both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
> being can match both 2 and 3 above.
--
The reality of Palestinian rule.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/1st_intifada_lynching.jpg
David Dalton
Feb 16, 2013, 10:02:42 PM2/16/13
to
In article <ebm4kr7c2daf$.vvhyquz8mw18$.d...@40tude.net>,
someone could grab the name when you use it.
But again you might default to an organizational
definition or dictionary definition (e.g. from
my concise Oxford, God=Supreme being, Creator
and Ruler of universe [where universe must be
spacetime and its contents, not everything, since
obviously God is part of everything]).
> > Some possibilities are:
> >
> > 1. the Creator
> > 2. the all-powerful being
> > 3. the personification of perfect love
> > 4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
> > 5. you default to an organizational definition
> > 6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
> > 7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
> >
> > and you might know of even more possibilities.
> >
> > I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
> > Genesis uses 1 above.
> >
> > I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
> > for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
> > deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
> > all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
> > both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
> > being can match both 2 and 3 above.
>
>
> It is difficult to have (1) and (7) together
Yes, I agree. But in the case of (6) you can
say that all(t) creates all(t+Delta t) where
Delta t is a small time increment, so that
ongoing creation and evolution are identical.
Truth and honesty <Tr...@honest.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:14:27 -0330, David Dalton wrote:
>
> > If you use the name God without knowing how it is
> > defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
> > default to an organizational definition, there
> > could be a match, but it is best that you know
> > that definition.
> >
> > With that in mind, how do you define God?
If you don't define God then a not-so-nice
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:14:27 -0330, David Dalton wrote:
>
> > If you use the name God without knowing how it is
> > defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
> > default to an organizational definition, there
> > could be a match, but it is best that you know
> > that definition.
> >
> > With that in mind, how do you define God?
someone could grab the name when you use it.
But again you might default to an organizational
definition or dictionary definition (e.g. from
my concise Oxford, God=Supreme being, Creator
and Ruler of universe [where universe must be
spacetime and its contents, not everything, since
obviously God is part of everything]).
> > Some possibilities are:
> >
> > 1. the Creator
> > 2. the all-powerful being
> > 3. the personification of perfect love
> > 4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
> > 5. you default to an organizational definition
> > 6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
> > 7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
> >
> > and you might know of even more possibilities.
> >
> > I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
> > Genesis uses 1 above.
> >
> > I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
> > for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
> > deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
> > all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
> > both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
> > being can match both 2 and 3 above.
>
>
> It is difficult to have (1) and (7) together
say that all(t) creates all(t+Delta t) where
Delta t is a small time increment, so that
ongoing creation and evolution are identical.
Surfer
Feb 17, 2013, 11:09:52 AM2/17/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:32:42 -0330, David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com>
wrote:
I think 6 is more realistic than 7 because the evidence for the big
bang implies that space-time and its contents were brought into
existence by something more fundamental.
This article suggests a possibility that is consistent with 6 and with
perhaps one or more of 1 .. 5.
Space and Gravitation
Reginald T.Cahill
Magister Botanicus ,Vol.2,pp.13-22,January 2004.
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS20.pdf
<Page 3>
4 Semantic Information in Physics
Research by the author into the very abstract mathematics of quantum
field theory,the formal mathematical theory that deals with elementary
�particles �,revealed that the formalism may be recast into something
like a stochastic neural network, although the analogy was far from
complete. But this did suggest that perhaps a stochastic neural
network in which time is modelled as an iterative process and not by
geometry, might be an interesting new starting point for modelling
reality. Such a system has intrinsic randomness. This system then
deals with self-forming networks of relations, and is remarkably
analogous to the neural network structure of brains. Rather than
having a priori undefined objects, it develops a fractal network of
relationships. The ongoing flux of patterns have the form of a
cellular network, of the form indicated in the picture, and amazingly
the cellular network organises itself into a global pattern having an
essentially growing three dimensional features, just like the spatial
structure of our expanding universe. The self-organisation process
uses the intrinsic randomness as a resource, and this randomness in
some sense also expresses the limits of internal knowledge and is
called self-referential noise.
More than that there are special defects in this network that are
preserved because of the way they are embedded in the spatial network,
and these patterns have the properties we immediately recognise as
that of matter. So both space and matter, at the quantum level,
emerge. The semantic nature of the system is that the information is
not about how we perceive reality, as in syntactical information
systems, but rather the information or pattern structure is internal
to the system, and in the main unavailable to us as observers.
This has a remarkable parallel with human consciousness: an external
observer has no access to the consciousness of another individual,
only the individual experiences his or her consciousness - the
information states of consciousness are strictly internal and
experiential. Just as in process physics there is evidence that
randomness in brains is also essential to their activity. The
implications of these analogies is that semantic information systems
are endemic in reality, that they alone are the only means by which
systems can form and maintain �structures �or �forms �, hence the
descriptor in formation. And perhaps all these �structures �are merely
thoughts.
The analogy is so close that one is tempted to assert that in some
sense the universe as a whole has some notion of primitive
consciousness, and that living systems, such as us, may actually
derive our consciousness, in its much more developed form, from that
underlying and intrinsic consciousness of the universe. This of course
is an idea that has arisen in many cultures and philosophies. As we
move away from the mechanical mindset associated with syntactical
information systems, these far reaching implications begin to appear
not only scientifically viable but philosophically very attractive.
But I digress too much. Before we explore such exciting notions it is
essential that the new Process Physics be tested against reality, by
both experiment and observation.
<End extract>
wrote:
bang implies that space-time and its contents were brought into
existence by something more fundamental.
This article suggests a possibility that is consistent with 6 and with
perhaps one or more of 1 .. 5.
Space and Gravitation
Reginald T.Cahill
Magister Botanicus ,Vol.2,pp.13-22,January 2004.
www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS20.pdf
<Page 3>
4 Semantic Information in Physics
Research by the author into the very abstract mathematics of quantum
field theory,the formal mathematical theory that deals with elementary
�particles �,revealed that the formalism may be recast into something
like a stochastic neural network, although the analogy was far from
complete. But this did suggest that perhaps a stochastic neural
network in which time is modelled as an iterative process and not by
geometry, might be an interesting new starting point for modelling
reality. Such a system has intrinsic randomness. This system then
deals with self-forming networks of relations, and is remarkably
analogous to the neural network structure of brains. Rather than
having a priori undefined objects, it develops a fractal network of
relationships. The ongoing flux of patterns have the form of a
cellular network, of the form indicated in the picture, and amazingly
the cellular network organises itself into a global pattern having an
essentially growing three dimensional features, just like the spatial
structure of our expanding universe. The self-organisation process
uses the intrinsic randomness as a resource, and this randomness in
some sense also expresses the limits of internal knowledge and is
called self-referential noise.
More than that there are special defects in this network that are
preserved because of the way they are embedded in the spatial network,
and these patterns have the properties we immediately recognise as
that of matter. So both space and matter, at the quantum level,
emerge. The semantic nature of the system is that the information is
not about how we perceive reality, as in syntactical information
systems, but rather the information or pattern structure is internal
to the system, and in the main unavailable to us as observers.
This has a remarkable parallel with human consciousness: an external
observer has no access to the consciousness of another individual,
only the individual experiences his or her consciousness - the
information states of consciousness are strictly internal and
experiential. Just as in process physics there is evidence that
randomness in brains is also essential to their activity. The
implications of these analogies is that semantic information systems
are endemic in reality, that they alone are the only means by which
systems can form and maintain �structures �or �forms �, hence the
descriptor in formation. And perhaps all these �structures �are merely
thoughts.
The analogy is so close that one is tempted to assert that in some
sense the universe as a whole has some notion of primitive
consciousness, and that living systems, such as us, may actually
derive our consciousness, in its much more developed form, from that
underlying and intrinsic consciousness of the universe. This of course
is an idea that has arisen in many cultures and philosophies. As we
move away from the mechanical mindset associated with syntactical
information systems, these far reaching implications begin to appear
not only scientifically viable but philosophically very attractive.
But I digress too much. Before we explore such exciting notions it is
essential that the new Process Physics be tested against reality, by
both experiment and observation.
<End extract>
David Dalton
Feb 17, 2013, 7:39:04 PM2/17/13
to
In article <t502i8tc4seu368eg...@4ax.com>,
Interesting, thanks, and I have saved it for later re-reading.
Andrew W
Feb 17, 2013, 8:08:49 PM2/17/13
to
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:dalton-564161....@mx05.eternal-september.org
It is explained below.
God is everything, the universe.
God is actually one single intelligent particle of energy moving around at
infinite speeds, making it appear like many particles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNxnE8nXFo4
http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/enlightenment/bashar-explains-how-everything-is-the-one-same-thing/
How then is matter formed? Each time the particle crosses its own path it
creates a point of density.
If it crosses its own path enough times it becomes so dense that to us it
seems solid.
--
Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.
news:dalton-564161....@mx05.eternal-september.org
> If you use the name God without knowing how it is
> defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
> default to an organizational definition, there
> could be a match, but it is best that you know
> that definition.
>
> With that in mind, how do you define God?
>
> Some possibilities are:
>
> 1. the Creator
> 2. the all-powerful being
> 3. the personification of perfect love
> 4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
> 5. you default to an organizational definition
> 6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
> 7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
>
> and you might know of even more possibilities.
>
> I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
> Genesis uses 1 above.
>
> I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
> for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
> deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
> all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
> both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
> being can match both 2 and 3 above.
>
The 'Prime Radiant' explains what God is.
> defined there may be no match. But I guess if you
> default to an organizational definition, there
> could be a match, but it is best that you know
> that definition.
>
> With that in mind, how do you define God?
>
> Some possibilities are:
>
> 1. the Creator
> 2. the all-powerful being
> 3. the personification of perfect love
> 4. the God of Abraham (a historical definition)
> 5. you default to an organizational definition
> 6. all/everything (all as a unit) (a panentheistic deity)
> 7. spacetime and its contents (a pantheistic deity)
>
> and you might know of even more possibilities.
>
> I think the Nicene Creed uses 1 and 2 above and
> Genesis uses 1 above.
>
> I personally use a combination of 1, 2, and 6 above
> for God (who I also call ALL), and have a second-ranked
> deity called LOVE2 that I think matches 3. Since
> all is not perfect, I think that no being can be
> both all-powerful and perfectly loving, i.e. no
> being can match both 2 and 3 above.
>
It is explained below.
God is everything, the universe.
God is actually one single intelligent particle of energy moving around at
infinite speeds, making it appear like many particles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNxnE8nXFo4
http://www.youaretrulyloved.com/enlightenment/bashar-explains-how-everything-is-the-one-same-thing/
How then is matter formed? Each time the particle crosses its own path it
creates a point of density.
If it crosses its own path enough times it becomes so dense that to us it
seems solid.
--
Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.
Truth and honesty
Feb 17, 2013, 11:37:13 PM2/17/13
to
Sam Taylor
Feb 18, 2013, 1:06:55 AM2/18/13
to
G-D is NOT a Name but a Title or Label.
Although G-D is the Name of a Germanic
Deity of the Third (3rd) to the Sixth (6th)
no no longer adored, worshiped, and or feared.
Separates it from Deity by Definition,
a past deity fallen out of Style, regulated
unto Mythology.
Deity is deity, and Divinity is Divinity.
an Ambassador sent from Deity would
then be classified as Divine, and not Deity.
Sam
plainolamerican
Feb 18, 2013, 12:20:00 PM2/18/13
to
> "Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
gods are created in the imaginations of man.
NefeshBarYochai
Feb 18, 2013, 2:00:03 PM2/18/13
to
It wouldn't surprise me that plainolamerican is a black Muslim or a Muslim
in general or an Aryan or German scum ball. He is anything but an America.
All he wants to do is make people hate Americans with his lies and stink. I
really do hope someone busts a cap in his face as HaShem punishes him for
his wickedness. Pray to the Almighty God that plainolamerican perishes
soon.
"plainolamerican" wrote in message
news:f7b94812-c83c-4843...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
in general or an Aryan or German scum ball. He is anything but an America.
All he wants to do is make people hate Americans with his lies and stink. I
really do hope someone busts a cap in his face as HaShem punishes him for
his wickedness. Pray to the Almighty God that plainolamerican perishes
soon.
"plainolamerican" wrote in message
news:f7b94812-c83c-4843...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
plainolamerican
Feb 18, 2013, 6:42:33 PM2/18/13
to
> > page)
> > "Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
>
> gods are created in the imaginations of man.
keep on praying to your mythical god, jew.
> > "Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
>
> gods are created in the imaginations of man.
it's not your mythical god who will save you ... it's the AIPAC
extorted US politicians that protects the jews. they must be removed
from our government asap by any means necessary.
know the enemy.
Up from the Abyss
Feb 18, 2013, 10:42:18 PM2/18/13
to
"Sam Taylor" wrote:
>
> Deity is deity, and Divinity is Divinity.
> an Ambassador sent from Deity would
> then be classified as Divine, and not Deity.
0 new messages