For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlink above it. You could also consider addressing any comments in situ, rather than here. – Thanks.
“Write4U – Actually it was in response to someone who declared that heaven is where the stars are. I could have added that of course our sun is a star and we are were the stars are, thus we are already in heaven.”
What, you just keep doing it until they go away and you declare yourself the winner?
You are welcome to all those non-existent gods, myths, heavens and hells.
Not my bag.
I will summarize one more time:
The question of God existing or not existing, is irrelevant. This is beyond the realm of scientific proof.
The only reasonable definition of God is the Emergent Property of Infinite Potentiality.
Existence/Non-Existence not separate. A paradox.
As a human being my concern with this, is a personal quest for expression of my humanness within the paradox.
What this will be, will be it’s own proof.
“Write4U – It has a name and it is clearly manifest, The Universe.
You keep trying to name something which does indeed not exist, Heaven.”
Sorry, at this point you’re being deliberately obtuse to serve your own agenda.
I will rest my case and let others find the meaning.
Sort of agreeing with you, at least I think so. Ask Write4U to quote the Tao Te Ching.
From what I’ve seen of Bohm via your quotes, I don’t have to argue with him. I don’t know if he ever uses the term “God”; doesn’t matter. That’s just my preference.
Lot of quibbling about semantics.
Quotes from Bohm:
“the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter”
“knowledge of matter (as well as of mind) has changed in such a way as to support the approach that has been described here. To pursue this approach further might perhaps enable us to extend our knowledge of both poles into new domains”
During the process of the various conversations, in these forums, I’ve come to appreciate that God does not exist. And also, that this does not in anyway change God.
For me the question is, how to improve expression of It. i.e. Yoga. or Scientific enquiry?
As Mike suggests:
“… to find the knowledge inside of you, you have to seek it.”
Mike Yohe – “Now help me with dualistic conceptualizations of God.
That may be me too.
There is not a bone in my body that believes in God or the concept of the creator except in the Gnostic thought.
I fully understand that man created gods, all gods. And you will never convince me otherwise. When I die I return to star dust. Don’t believe in the sprites and junk.
When I think of my Grandfather and Grandmother I know that they are in heaven with their God. And their God Almighty is real. You can try but you will not be able to convince me otherwise.
I do not try and figure it out, because it doesn’t bother me that much, I figure it is just part of being human.
I sure hope this is dualistic conceptualizations of God trait; otherwise call for Nurses Ratched; I’m ready for a lobotomy.
It is not dualistic conceptualization in the presence of Gnostic thought.
Missing Gnostic thought, then Atheism makes no sense, and lobotomy not helpful.
“Write4U – Then you have not understood a word I have said and what’s worse you have not checked out David Bohm, or you would understand that Bohm speaks in terms of Wholeness and Holomovement., exactly the opposite of what you are positing here.”
“Bohm – (latent excellence which may become reality, Potential)”
My apologies then.
Would saying, ‘Latent Excellence/Potential not separable’, carried my point better? Probably not.
Maybe the problem is the question of Existence. Can “Universal Wholeness” actually be said to exist. Existence, in the usual sense of the word, requires it’s opposite. Non Existence.
How can evidence be gathered in such a case?
The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind.
(Tao Te Ching; chap. 1, tr. Waley)
“Write4U – Then, the final logical argument from the definition of Potential.
potential = that which may become reality. Thus, while not all potential becomes reality, all reality is, was, and will be preceded by potential. Even the Big Bang was preceded by Potential. It is the true definition of ‘creative ability’, Potential.”
The understanding of God, being resolved here is not really a universal understanding. Only the dualistic theologies are ‘resolved’ by the above argument. It does not resolve the monistic conceptualization. Potential/Potential made Explicate. Inseparable.
The field of Potentiality does not disappear once a Potential is made Explicate.
When the Potential of ‘Time’ manifests. What is the ground of Events within Time? Potentiality. Infinite singularity. Eternal ‘Here and Now’.
The arguments of Atheists against dualistic conceptualizations of God, is like 5th graders badgering 3rd graders about their lack of education.