Who or What is God?

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Kioma, I disagre, in that a word is associated with a metaphysical-1 concept.

This is why make the distinction is terms of word God/Universe ---ego synonyms---.

God/Universe = occupied space aka spirit-2, 3 and 4, and there exist three primary kinds of occupied space.

In the following I use italics ---in quotes--- to make clears the distinction of occupied space from a metaphysical-1 concept of occupied space or concept of the true non-occupied space.

"G"od/"U"niverse = metaphysical-1 aka spirit-1 and is inclusive of God/Universe { Uni-V-erse } as the following

Uni- being associated with metaphysical-3 { spirit-3 } Gravity ( ),

-V- being associated with occupied space { fermons and bosons } sine-wave /\/\/\ frequency aka physical/energy/reality aka Observed Time

-erse being associated with dissasociative, occupied space of metaphysical-4 { spirit-4 }, Dark Energy )(.

So all that exists ---except metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space is included in the above set. If we add in the macro-infinite non-occupied space, then we have the Cosmic Trinity;

Metaphysical-1, concepts/mind/intellect

-------------conceptual line-of-demarcation-------------------

Metaphysical-2, ---true non-occupied space---

Occupied Space Uni-V-erse { Universe/God }

Start with the whole, and no parts can be excluded...... B Fuller

.................................................. ......Space(>*<) i (>*<)Space.................................................. ....

Any who follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, will eventually be led here, as I have.

IS a just a term of verb { more includes dynamic }, to replace the term IT.

The universe is just one aspect of the omniverse.

We'll know more when we know more.

[r6r6]

Kioma, your "ominverse" lacks clarity of definiiton and in the any final analysis, ---irrespective of how you define your "ominverse"--- is included in the term Universe.

All {omni }are connected minimally by Gravity ergo one-verse = Universe.

There is not getting around what Ive laid out clearly with definition.

You get and E for effort. Play again?

Originally Posted by Kioma

The universe is just one aspect of the omniverse.

We'll know more when we know more.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Kioma, your "ominverse" lacks clarity of definiiton and in the any final analysis, ---irrespective of how you define your "ominverse"--- is included in the term Universe.

All {omni }are connected minimally by Gravity ergo one-verse = Universe.

There is not getting around what Ive laid out clearly with definition.

You get and E for effort. Play again?

A miracle, by definition, is unexplainable - and after my insight that is what I am personally left with. Existence - where it all comes from and how it is sustained - is a miracle. Another word I now use for 'God' is 'Mystery', because I realize the concept of 'Mystery' is as close as I in a human incarnation will ever get to 'understanding' God.

I can not explain it. It does defy my capacity for understanding and logic. That is another conclusion I was forced to accept after that experience, where I saw through existence, saw through my own ego - that I am limited. Though everything is connected in God, there are things bigger than I am, physically, mentally, psychically.

That said, we just see things differently, and that's okay. *Bows to R6*

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...ad.php?t=24049

[r6r6]

So youve gone from introducing term "omniverse" to,
introducing term "Existence" to,
introducing term "Mystery" / "miracle".

I have been very clear in defining my terminology, as presented, and always been open to elaborate and clarify of others if necessary to do so,

within the context of rational, logical common sense pathways of thoughts, that are based in observations and we derive intuitive/speculative conclusions, thereof.

1} omini-verse = the one, Universe aka God aka Uni-V-erse aka the most comprehensive, wholistic set,

2} existence appears to in three primary types, as I laid out clearly { for years },

........2a} Metaphysical-1 { mind/intellect/concepts } aka spirit-1,


-----------------conceptual line-of-demarcation---------

.......2b} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space,

........2c} finite, eternally existent ---see 1st law of thermodynamics--- occupied space Universe/God ergo spirit-2, 3, and 4,

3} mystery / miracles are many ex womans to dilate cervix so much to birth a baby/fetus,

..................idiot savants who do miracle stuff with their brains,

..................That Solysut-7 spacestation was saved in 1985 despite the odds against rescuing the station,

That Universe/God exists is not that much of mystery when we consider the 1st law of thermodynamics ----which makes rational, logical common sense--- is really the only option, beause,

there is no rational, logical common sense to support the scenario of a finite, occupied space { spirit-2, 3, 4 } appearing from where before there existed no occupied space { 0 / nada } aka nothing.

For occupied space to appear out of true macro-infinite non-occupied space, would be far beyond "miracle" "mystery" etc.

Such illusions are best left to magician types who experts at fooling the human eye.

Originally Posted by Kioma

A miracle, by definition, is unexplainable - and after my insight that is what I am personally left with. Existence - where it all comes from and how it is sustained - is a miracle. Another word I now use for 'God' is 'Mystery', because I realize the concept of 'Mystery' is as close as I in a human incarnation will ever get to 'understanding' God.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

...Such illusions are best left to magician types who experts at fooling the human eye.

Speaking of the human eye...

No matter how clearly you lay out your terminology, definitions, rationality and logic, no matter how many words you use, does that really define reality in a meaningful way? For example, if you were describing the Mona Lisa to someone who has never seen it, would they ever really know what it looks like, just based on your words?

In the same way, we spend our lives expanding our universe. First it is our mother, than our crib, then our home, then our street, then our town, our state, our country. After all that, do we then know everything about everything?

But we go to school, and we learn contemporary mathematics and science and astronomy and astrophysics - do we then know everything about everything? We were sure we did before - but surely now we really know everything about everything.

Once again we are at a point where we have seen as far as we can see - and once again we assume there is nothing beyond that - that now, we know everything about everything.

Words can only reflect what we know, no matter how precise or specifically we work to define them. We have come far - but you are again ready to assert that's it? Now we know all there is to know, and God Itself falls at the feet of our mighty intellects?

I find that hard to believe, R6.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Kioma

No matter how clearly you lay out your terminology, definitions, rationality and logic, no matter how many words you use, does that really define reality in a meaningful way

Kioma, EX. ..."Go to third house on left marked 249 turn into driveway, I'm on 2nd floor apt c. and it has picture of bluebird on door. Doorbell is on right, but does not function properly sometime so hold button for at least 5 seconds"....

Will that terminology help some one to get where they need to go i.e. in a meaningful way? Of course it is meaningful to get where we need to be.

After all that, do we then know everything about everything?

NOt sure what your point is. Of course you and I are not likey to know everything there is to know about Universe. I never stated that we will, or that it is even possible.

But we go to school, and we learn contemporary mathematics and science and astronomy and astrophysics - do we then know everything about everything? We were sure we did before-...

If someone told you that you new all there was to know, they were lying to you. Humans lie. Nothing new there. Humans make error nothing new there. Again, not sure what your point is or that it is relevant to anything ive presented.

- but surely now we really know everything about everything.

Says who? Not me and your having conversation with me.

Once again we are at a point where we have seen as far as we can see - and once again we assume there is nothing beyond that - that now, we know everything about everything.

Not sure what your talking about above, cause over time, humans have seen more and more of our finite, occupied space Universe, in various frequencies of EMRadiation.

I think there is more to come. Apparrently you think humans will never "see" any other frequencies and any further or with more clarity then what we have accomplished to date.

Words can only reflect what we know, no matter how precise or specifically we work to define them. We have come far - but you are again ready to assert that's it? Now we know all there is to know, and God Itself falls at the feet of our mighty intellects?

Again, I dont know your talking to, cause Ive never ever stated we know all there is to know, seen all there is to see etc. Words are ways of communicating. If you anti-words, I really do not follow what your point is.

I find that hard to believe, R6.

When you find some comment by me, that you find hard to believe, then you can address that comment specifically. I dont see anywhere above in you message that have done that.

Again, you get and E for effort, but you do not ever really address the many comments Ive laid out clearly. Play Again?

[utopiandreamchild]

I dont think god has been realized just yet because there's no physical evidence of god. If the idea of god is that he's all powerful then why isn't he here. There's something not quite right in my opinion. Amen

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Kioma, EX. ..."Go to third house on left marked 249 turn into driveway, I'm on 2nd floor apt c. and it has picture of bluebird on door. Doorbell is on right, but does not function properly sometime so hold button for at least 5 seconds"....

Will that terminology help some one to get where they need to go i.e. in a meaningful way? Of course it is meaningful to get where we need to be.

So you are saying directions to someone's apartment is the same complexity as an iconic work of art?

Originally Posted by r6r6r

NOt sure what your point is. Of course you and I are not likey to know everything there is to know about Universe. I never stated that we will, or that it is even possible.

If someone told you that you new all there was to know, they were lying to you. Humans lie. Nothing new there. Humans make error nothing new there. Again, not sure what your point is or that it is relevant to anything ive presented.

Says who? Not me and your having conversation with me.

Not sure what your talking about above, cause over time, humans have seen more and more of our finite, occupied space Universe, in various frequencies of EMRadiation.

I think there is more to come. Apparrently you think humans will never "see" any other frequencies and any further or with more clarity then what we have accomplished to date.

Again, I dont know your talking to, cause Ive never ever stated we know all there is to know, seen all there is to see etc. Words are ways of communicating. If you anti-words, I really do not follow what your point is.

When you find some comment by me, that you find hard to believe, then you can address that comment specifically. I dont see anywhere above in you message that have done that.

Again, you get and E for effort, but you do not ever really address the many comments Ive laid out clearly. Play Again?

I've confessed before that to me you have a most unique way of expressing yourself. So it would seem do I to you. This is unfortunate, as language depends on commonalities of expression to communicate.

How do we bridge this gap?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Kioma

So you are saying directions to someone's apartment is the same complexity as an iconic work of art?

I dont recall making any such statement. I gave you an example of words having significant meaning and you appear to think words dont have any significant meaning.

I've confessed before that to me you have a most unique way of expressing yourself. So it would seem do I to you. This is unfortunate, as language depends on commonalities of expression to communicate.

Words have significant meaing to me. Apparrently not you. I agree that if you dont think words have signifcant meaning, they your viewpoint is unique in that way.

How do we bridge this gap?

I have presented many other comments besides directions ergo I repeat,

When you find some comment by me, that you find hard to believe, then you can address that comment specifically. I dont see anywhere above in your last two messages that have done that.

I believe my messages are not only unique,I also they are also true as based on observation, rational, logical common sense and sometimes intuitive speculation, based on the latter above.

Omniverse is a subcatagory of Universe/God and Universe/God is a subcatagory of "U"niverse/"G"od. With the latter being the top of the Cosmic trinity Hierarchial Outline.


.................Space(>*<) i(>*<)Space...............................

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I dont recall making any such statement. I gave you an example of words having significant meaning and you appear to think words dont have any significant meaning.

Words have significant meaing to me. Apparrently not you. I agree that if you dont think words have signifcant meaning, they your viewpoint is unique in that way.

I have presented many other comments besides directions ergo I repeat,

When you find some comment by me, that you find hard to believe, then you can address that comment specifically. I dont see anywhere above in your last two messages that have done that.

I believe my messages are not only unique,I also they are also true as based on observation, rational, logical common sense and sometimes intuitive speculation, based on the latter above.

Omniverse is a subcatagory of Universe/God and Universe/God is a subcatagory of "U"niverse/"G"od. With the latter being the top of the Cosmic trinity Hierarchial Outline.

.................Space(>*<) i(>*<)Space...............................

In a perfect world everyone and everything accedes to our requirements.

Alas, while it is a perfect world, 'acceding to our requirements' is just not a world priority.

Perhaps next time.