Ahhh two serious responses to my not serious post. Look, it seems to me if God is timeless and eternal, then the qualities of God are timeless and eternal. Did one come before the other or is one contained within the other? I’m certain I don’t know and I’m pretty sure neither you or Liberal know. We use words to try and comprehend and describe what is actually indescribable. {Hoodoo inserts candy bar joke here}
I see love and truth as intertwined in a way that is impossible to seperate. You can’t have one without the other and thats enough knowledge for me to move forward. Frankly when you guys get going you’re often over my head but I find it interesting and thought provoking and I sincerely thank you.
The Truth is just what is. It doesn’t need any other thing to exist, Every thing else must contain some truth. We do not always know it, we do at times try to deny it, but truth is the only thing that needs nothing else…Thuth is in every thing and can be different at other times, such as: If one lookes at a tree and says the tree has green leaves, it is truth, in the Fall if some one else saw the tree he (or she) could say the tree has many colors of leaves, In winter one could say, the tree has no leaves. All would be true at that moment they saw it. The whole truth is that the tree leaves change with the seasons. The egg of love would have to be in truth to exist, If Truth is a chicken, it would be the chicken even without love, But it would first have to be the truth.
Some use other meanings,as I see it Existance is unending and has always been, what ever exists, because if something came out of nothing, it would then be in existance.
There is a difference between Being(existing) and “a” being.
In order for any one or thing to be everywhere at the same time, it would have to be in everything and every thing in it.
I just watched a program on PBS on the life of Einstein and he said the same thing. I am nowhere near a genius, but I understand, and have understood that for a long time. Being and existing are the same thing.
Being and existing may indeed be the same thing. You see on these boards that we don’t agree on what actually exists and what doesn’t. I suppose that means we don’t really know what being is either. If you’re sure you know then good for you.
Monavis; I’ve enjoyed most of your input and offer sincere thanks. I can’t figure out why you continue to post serious and supposedly profound answers to our posts which are just kidding around. Is that part of your being?
It doesn’t for me. In some respects God is a concept that is constantly updated by our percetption, according to our experiences and the evolution of our beliefs.
We strive to sift through the myths and traditions to learn the truth about ourselves and God. Each journey is unique within the individual.
In answer to Hoo Doo, I would reply;according to the dictionary the word being means all that exists, everywhere. I take everywhere to mean the cosmos and beyond (if there is such a place beyond). There is a difference between being, and “A” being. That is why I respect all people, places, and things. On this earth we are all connected. I try to respect everyone, their beliefs, the environment, and their properties.
In my beliefs God is the totality of all that is. Not in the Christian or Judeo sense.Not a heavenly Father who watches over us.
I respect everyone’s right to their own belief,they do not have to accept mine. Life experiances, the things we were taught as children,what we have studied etc. helps us decide what we believe.
The difference lies in the nature of the existence. Unlike any other being, God exists in all possible worlds — that is, She exists necessarily.
Why can there be only one? Well, argue by reductio. Or, as Koons puts it:
“Suppose that it were possible for something to be a supreme being but not a necessary being. … then in this imagined situation we have both a necessary being and a supreme being that is not necessary. Since every necessary being is a supreme being, this would mean that we had two supreme beings, which is supposed to be impossible.”
I have great respect for a religious view which has such positive ethical consequences.
My question arises not because I believe your view to be false, but because I am unable to make sense of it. I think there must be something unsaid in your belief, and this is what I am trying to draw out.
We all necessarily believe in the “totality of all that is”. In your belief as you express it, to believe in God is no more than to believe in the existence of “all that is”. What additional information about “all that is” is conveyed by naming it “God”?
)