This is a hypothetical for skeptics. You can only answer it if you're able to humour me with this hypothetical. It need not be your actual belief.
Let's say, for whatever reason, you acknowledged the possibility of one God who (at least) created the universe. In addition, this God also has extreme wisdom & power, and He knew when He created the universe that we humans would come about. This is all that you have acknowledged and you don't pay any strong regard to religion.
With this in mind, do you have any assumptions or inklings towards what this God is like? Examples includes assumptions/inklings regarding whether this God is good/bad, whether He cares about us or not, whether He expects something from us or not, and many more ideas that I can't list. Also, do you have a judgment of this God in any way? Do you think of Him fondly, do you think of Him with criticism, or do you genuinely not have opinions on the matter?
If you don't have any inklings/assumptions/opinions whatsoever when entertaining this hypothetical, that's fine too. I'm just curious what people's opinion is of God when they don't ascribe to any religion but still entertain the possibility that God exists.
What Assumptions Would You Make Regarding God?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
[Replying to post 10 by OnceConvinced]
I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other analogy that does justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things. I like to think of God as cosmic Artist, luring the universe on to newer and grander forms of beauty. I see God, then, as governing persuasively not coercively. We all have freedom, as that is an essential dimension of beauty. Therefore , God is no cosmic dictator. God cannot decide for us. We have to decide for ourselves. I realize that to some a God who dos snot predestine everything seems a weak God. However, I believe that it takes more talent to govern over a democracy than to runs a dictatorship. I see that as the ideal model of power, power over powers participating in the free self-decisions of others. Rather than kingdom, I like to think of the universe as a democracy, and God as a kind of president presiding over it. I see creation as representing God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-actualization and self-consciousness. I believe that God and the universe are mutually interdependent and that God grows as the universe goes. Of course, all this needs a further spelling-out. That would be too long of a digression to get into here. So I am just hitting the highlights of what I believe about God.
I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other analogy that does justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things. I like to think of God as cosmic Artist, luring the universe on to newer and grander forms of beauty. I see God, then, as governing persuasively not coercively. We all have freedom, as that is an essential dimension of beauty. Therefore , God is no cosmic dictator. God cannot decide for us. We have to decide for ourselves. I realize that to some a God who dos snot predestine everything seems a weak God. However, I believe that it takes more talent to govern over a democracy than to runs a dictatorship. I see that as the ideal model of power, power over powers participating in the free self-decisions of others. Rather than kingdom, I like to think of the universe as a democracy, and God as a kind of president presiding over it. I see creation as representing God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-actualization and self-consciousness. I believe that God and the universe are mutually interdependent and that God grows as the universe goes. Of course, all this needs a further spelling-out. That would be too long of a digression to get into here. So I am just hitting the highlights of what I believe about God.
Post #12
[Replying to post 11 by hoghead1]
[center]
In other words, what does our beliefs about something tell us about it? [/center]
How does your belief in God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things guarantee that it is so?hoghead1 wrote:
I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other analogy that does justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things.
[center]
In other words, what does our beliefs about something tell us about it? [/center]
Post #13
[Replying to post 12 by Blastcat]
Good question. I realize I did not provide any proofs or arguments for the existence of God. That is another story. I have several proofs in mind. I don't know whether to go into them here or not. I don't want to get into a long digression. I'll just hit the highlights. One is that nothing exists in isolation. Reality is relational. To exist is to be prehended or perceived. The totality of the universe exists, and therefore has to be prehended. But none of us can se the whole shooting match. therefore, there must be a cosmic prehender that sees the whole thing, i.e., God. Another is that we all seek meaningfulness and that means significance, permanence. But it is hard to find any real meaning in a ever-changing and fleeting world. What's the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in some soon enough anyway? The evil of evils is that the past fades away. If, however, there is a God who can experience everything and preserve everything in his or her everlasting memory, then it is a different story. Everything, even the smallest, has meaning, eternal significance, as it is preserved and enjoyed in God forever. Yet another is that it is totally irrational to deny there is a God. Even the most stringent atheist has to admit there is at least some possibility there is a God. But you can't just say there is some possibility there is a God and let it go at that. God should take the more superior of any possible predicates. Since it is better to be actual than merely potential, God must exist. If you admit God is possible, which is the logical thing to do, then you have to conclude that God is actual. Yet another is that we have the concept of a God. Now our human imagination is never really free. All our ideas, no matter how imaginary they may be, do have a basis in fact. Hence, unless there is a God and we have some point encountered this God, we would not have such a concept. Also, I believe that the system that creates the need satisfies the need. We all need water and there is water, etc. now, I think it is very basic for human to believe in a God. I think we are hard-wired to do so. Hence, it is a basic human need to believe in God., hence, there is a God. Now, of course, there is no argument for anything that you can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough. Witness that there are still people who believe in a flat earth. So I don't have any proofs that someone can't maybe wiggle out of. I am saying that putting a number together makes a most impressive circumstantial case for teh reality of God.
Good question. I realize I did not provide any proofs or arguments for the existence of God. That is another story. I have several proofs in mind. I don't know whether to go into them here or not. I don't want to get into a long digression. I'll just hit the highlights. One is that nothing exists in isolation. Reality is relational. To exist is to be prehended or perceived. The totality of the universe exists, and therefore has to be prehended. But none of us can se the whole shooting match. therefore, there must be a cosmic prehender that sees the whole thing, i.e., God. Another is that we all seek meaningfulness and that means significance, permanence. But it is hard to find any real meaning in a ever-changing and fleeting world. What's the point of doing anything if it is all going to go up in some soon enough anyway? The evil of evils is that the past fades away. If, however, there is a God who can experience everything and preserve everything in his or her everlasting memory, then it is a different story. Everything, even the smallest, has meaning, eternal significance, as it is preserved and enjoyed in God forever. Yet another is that it is totally irrational to deny there is a God. Even the most stringent atheist has to admit there is at least some possibility there is a God. But you can't just say there is some possibility there is a God and let it go at that. God should take the more superior of any possible predicates. Since it is better to be actual than merely potential, God must exist. If you admit God is possible, which is the logical thing to do, then you have to conclude that God is actual. Yet another is that we have the concept of a God. Now our human imagination is never really free. All our ideas, no matter how imaginary they may be, do have a basis in fact. Hence, unless there is a God and we have some point encountered this God, we would not have such a concept. Also, I believe that the system that creates the need satisfies the need. We all need water and there is water, etc. now, I think it is very basic for human to believe in a God. I think we are hard-wired to do so. Hence, it is a basic human need to believe in God., hence, there is a God. Now, of course, there is no argument for anything that you can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough. Witness that there are still people who believe in a flat earth. So I don't have any proofs that someone can't maybe wiggle out of. I am saying that putting a number together makes a most impressive circumstantial case for teh reality of God.
Post #14
[Replying to post 13 by hoghead1]
That's a claim, not a fact.
Claims need to be supported by evidence. Preferably, fact, not fiction.
There's a rule?
Claims such as these "HAVE" to be supported in this forum.
Real things just NEED to be "prehended" and God is the one who NEEDS to prehend it.
I do not comprehend this reasoning.
You provide two claims that so far, seem completely unsupported.
But in any case, provide evidence for these claims or... drop them for the unsupported assertions that I suspect that they represent.
Demonstrate that things that exist NEED to be "prehended" and demonstrate that this God seeer of the whole she-bang actually exists so that it CAN be the prehender you are talking about. You need to demonstrate that your two claims are true.
And by the way....
Who prehends god?
Things do NOT exist if they are not perceived?hoghead1 wrote:
Good question. I realize I did not provide any proofs or arguments for the existence of God. That is another story. I have several proofs in mind. I don't know whether to go into them here or not. I don't want to get into a long digression. I'll just hit the highlights. One is that nothing exists in isolation. Reality is relational. To exist is to be prehended or perceived.
That's a claim, not a fact.
Claims need to be supported by evidence. Preferably, fact, not fiction.
Has to be ?"
There's a rule?
Claims such as these "HAVE" to be supported in this forum.
You have a requirement that pops out of nowhere... "things that exist need to be "prehended"... without demonstrating that your requirement is true... Then you have a prehender who pops out of nowhere to fulfill your requirement and who sees the whole thing. i.e. "God".hoghead1 wrote:
But none of us can se the whole shooting match. therefore, there must be a cosmic prehender that sees the whole thing, i.e., God.
Real things just NEED to be "prehended" and God is the one who NEEDS to prehend it.
I do not comprehend this reasoning.
You provide two claims that so far, seem completely unsupported.
But in any case, provide evidence for these claims or... drop them for the unsupported assertions that I suspect that they represent.
Demonstrate that things that exist NEED to be "prehended" and demonstrate that this God seeer of the whole she-bang actually exists so that it CAN be the prehender you are talking about. You need to demonstrate that your two claims are true.
And by the way....
Who prehends god?
Post #15
[Replying to post 14 by Blastcat]
I argue modern science has taught us to see the basic structure of reality as relativistic. Nothing exists in isolation. Everything exists in a relationship with something else. The basic fiber of reality is like a web, a spider's web. You tweek it here and it wiggles way over there. Ultimately, you could say that everything is related to everything else. I go a step further. I believe the separation of mind and matter has been a disaster that explains nothing, least of all the interaction between the two. In contrast to the dualists such as Descartes, I hold that mind and matter are one. I believe the basic building blocks of the universe, the "atoms," are subjective unities of experience, droplets of experience. All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls. Even atoms have tiny minds. This does not mean, however, that all experience is conscious experience. Therefore, everything is experienced or felt by everything else. That being the case, there has to be a cosmic perceiver or experiencer of the entire universe. Logically that entity would be God. Who prehends God? Good question. We do. OK, but who can prehend the whole of God? God does, because God enjoys a social relationship with himself or herself beyond anything we are capable of.
I argue modern science has taught us to see the basic structure of reality as relativistic. Nothing exists in isolation. Everything exists in a relationship with something else. The basic fiber of reality is like a web, a spider's web. You tweek it here and it wiggles way over there. Ultimately, you could say that everything is related to everything else. I go a step further. I believe the separation of mind and matter has been a disaster that explains nothing, least of all the interaction between the two. In contrast to the dualists such as Descartes, I hold that mind and matter are one. I believe the basic building blocks of the universe, the "atoms," are subjective unities of experience, droplets of experience. All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls. Even atoms have tiny minds. This does not mean, however, that all experience is conscious experience. Therefore, everything is experienced or felt by everything else. That being the case, there has to be a cosmic perceiver or experiencer of the entire universe. Logically that entity would be God. Who prehends God? Good question. We do. OK, but who can prehend the whole of God? God does, because God enjoys a social relationship with himself or herself beyond anything we are capable of.
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #16
[Replying to post 13 by hoghead1]
In post 13, you just made a paradox.
You said
Now, here's the paradox.
Who or what is perceiving God? Especially before the creation of the universe (assuming that you still hold that the universe was created)?
If you hold that 'nothing exists in isolation', that to exist 'is to be perceived', then for God to exist, there MUST be something perceiving HIM. Your logic would disallow the existence of God when he is the only thing that exists (prior to the universe). Even if you don't hold to a universe creation, you said that the universe, as an entirety, requires that there be something that 'sees the whole thing'. Thus, to be consistent, there'd have to be something that does the same for God, i.e. 'sees the whole thing'.
Your logic either violates its premises or introduces an infinite regress.
In post 13, you just made a paradox.
You said
Ok.One is that nothing exists in isolation.
Ok, with you so far (doesn't mean I agree with it, just that I can follow along).Reality is relational. To exist is to be prehended or perceived.
So there's this God, who sees the whole thing. Right.But none of us can se the whole shooting match. therefore, there must be a cosmic prehender that sees the whole thing, i.e., God.
Now, here's the paradox.
Who or what is perceiving God? Especially before the creation of the universe (assuming that you still hold that the universe was created)?
If you hold that 'nothing exists in isolation', that to exist 'is to be perceived', then for God to exist, there MUST be something perceiving HIM. Your logic would disallow the existence of God when he is the only thing that exists (prior to the universe). Even if you don't hold to a universe creation, you said that the universe, as an entirety, requires that there be something that 'sees the whole thing'. Thus, to be consistent, there'd have to be something that does the same for God, i.e. 'sees the whole thing'.
Your logic either violates its premises or introduces an infinite regress.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #17
[Replying to post 14 by Blastcat]
Same thing here. Who 'prehend's God?
The argument is JUST like the intelligent design argument, where the universe, being so complex, just HAD to be designed by an ID'er. Well...who designed God then?Demonstrate that things that exist NEED to be "prehended" and demonstrate that this God seeer of the whole she-bang actually exists so that it CAN be the prehender you are talking about. You need to demonstrate that your two claims are true.
And by the way....
Who prehends god?
Same thing here. Who 'prehend's God?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
Post #18
[Replying to post 15 by hoghead1]
!
[center]
Is it important to believe true things or just whatever we can think up?[/center]
Relation, however, is not causation.
Ask me about dinosaurs and sauerkraut one of these days. I make bizarre connections all the time. It can get a little ridiculous, but that's one of the things about humor.
I had articulated this logic trick by the time that I was 15. My very first bizarre connection was "Nixon and trees " . I was explaining how I used imagination to help me write poetry or make a joke. I thought it was funny, and it went right over her head.. so that romance never got off the ground. She looked just like Marylin Monroe, too.
A shame that.
Do you base this belief on evidence?
Subatomic minds in subatomic brains made up of... really really small particles.
Have these atomic minds been observed?
If so, please, I would like to have some sources.
But in any case.. again, evidence please. Fantasy fiction is fun, but I read fantasy fiction for that. When it comes to philosophy, I would rather have it grounded in what I CAN know.. and not just pure speculation. I get enough of that from the Christians.
Alien abductees might call it "The Greys". Hindus might call it "Brahman".
As an atheist, I don't have a dog in that race, so I don't call it anything. I'd rather wait until I get some evidence for it until I slap a label on it. Of COURSE it would be "God" to a Christian. But it could be something or someone else. Have you ruled those other possibilities out?
It seems that you use "God" to mean "cosmos" or "universe". Are you a pantheist like Einstein and Spinoza? Is "God" just a different word for the everything which experiences everything else? Because the words "cosmos" and "universe" are labels for "everything". I could be an Einsteinian pantheist.. in fact, I think that I am. I revere reality. It's great. It's awesome. It's the greatest thing. I'm a part of everything, and that's super. I don't go imagining that things like clouds are thinking, though. I don't have any evidence for that.
I think you've allowed yourself to project your own thoughts onto nature.
That's called anthropomorphism, and in your case, you are projecting a human quality, i.e. "thinking" onto things for which we have no evidence can do that. It's like projecting faces in the clouds. You are imagining minds in the clouds. I often have my head in the clouds, but I don't go around believing my thoughts are real just because I've had them.
Some of my thoughts aren't real.
How do you know that your thoughts about "the mind of the universe" or whatnot are about real events and not just about your imagined projections?
And by the way, I enjoy a social relationship with myself.
I call that "thinking".
Your final statement also needs a way to be verified.
Do you have a mechanism in mind?
!
[center]
Is it important to believe true things or just whatever we can think up?[/center]
Assuming that we know everything that there is to know.hoghead1 wrote:
I argue modern science has taught us to see the basic structure of reality as relativistic. Nothing exists in isolation. Everything exists in a relationship with something else.
Assuming that we know the basic fiber of reality.
Humans make connections between very different things, that's for sure. You might want to prove that everything is actually related to everything else. But it sure sounds nice.hoghead1 wrote:
You tweek it here and it wiggles way over there. Ultimately, you could say that everything is related to everything else.
Relation, however, is not causation.
Ask me about dinosaurs and sauerkraut one of these days. I make bizarre connections all the time. It can get a little ridiculous, but that's one of the things about humor.
I had articulated this logic trick by the time that I was 15. My very first bizarre connection was "Nixon and trees " . I was explaining how I used imagination to help me write poetry or make a joke. I thought it was funny, and it went right over her head.. so that romance never got off the ground. She looked just like Marylin Monroe, too.
A shame that.
Could you explain how it's been a disaster?hoghead1 wrote:
I go a step further. I believe the separation of mind and matter has been a disaster that explains nothing, least of all the interaction between the two.
Could you explain why?
Do you have any supporting evidence for that belief?hoghead1 wrote:
I believe the basic building blocks of the universe, the "atoms," are subjective unities of experience, droplets of experience.
Another belief of yours, I take it?
Do you base this belief on evidence?
Oh, yes, they would have to be very tiny indeed.
Subatomic minds in subatomic brains made up of... really really small particles.
Have these atomic minds been observed?
If so, please, I would like to have some sources.
A group think? .. The entire universe experiences itself, then. I would be more interested in true things... so how do you know your interesting theory is true?hoghead1 wrote:
This does not mean, however, that all experience is conscious experience. Therefore, everything is experienced or felt by everything else.
I think you just said that the entire universe thinks and perceives itself. I thought that would have been good enough. Why need of a boss thinker?hoghead1 wrote:
That being the case, there has to be a cosmic perceiver or experiencer of the entire universe.
But in any case.. again, evidence please. Fantasy fiction is fun, but I read fantasy fiction for that. When it comes to philosophy, I would rather have it grounded in what I CAN know.. and not just pure speculation. I get enough of that from the Christians.
Then again, you might be a Christian.
Alien abductees might call it "The Greys". Hindus might call it "Brahman".
As an atheist, I don't have a dog in that race, so I don't call it anything. I'd rather wait until I get some evidence for it until I slap a label on it. Of COURSE it would be "God" to a Christian. But it could be something or someone else. Have you ruled those other possibilities out?
It seems that you use "God" to mean "cosmos" or "universe". Are you a pantheist like Einstein and Spinoza? Is "God" just a different word for the everything which experiences everything else? Because the words "cosmos" and "universe" are labels for "everything". I could be an Einsteinian pantheist.. in fact, I think that I am. I revere reality. It's great. It's awesome. It's the greatest thing. I'm a part of everything, and that's super. I don't go imagining that things like clouds are thinking, though. I don't have any evidence for that.
I think you've allowed yourself to project your own thoughts onto nature.
That's called anthropomorphism, and in your case, you are projecting a human quality, i.e. "thinking" onto things for which we have no evidence can do that. It's like projecting faces in the clouds. You are imagining minds in the clouds. I often have my head in the clouds, but I don't go around believing my thoughts are real just because I've had them.
Some of my thoughts aren't real.
How do you know that your thoughts about "the mind of the universe" or whatnot are about real events and not just about your imagined projections?
So, we are the ultimate "prehenders". We might be prehending something that isn't real. How do we find out?
Oh, we prehend God, but not all of God. So we can't be the ultimate prehenders, then?hoghead1 wrote:
OK, but who can prehend the whole of God? God does, because God enjoys a social relationship with himself or herself beyond anything we are capable of.
And by the way, I enjoy a social relationship with myself.
I call that "thinking".
Your final statement also needs a way to be verified.
Do you have a mechanism in mind?
Post #19
[Replying to post 16 by rikuoamero]
OK, I see where you are coming from. My view is that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization. There never was a time when God was purely unconscious, merely potential. There has always been some kind of created order. Before this universe there was another, different one, and so an ad infinitum. I am willing to accept that infinite regress. I have no trouble with it, since I assume God is eternal and also eternally creative. The priority of God as unconscious and merely potential is logical, not temporal.
Given that purely for the purposes of analysis you wanted to discuss God without a universe, then I would say what was there is something, an unconscious imagination seeking to self-actualize itself and become conscious. All creativity is the actualization of a potential. Now potentials are helpless in themselves and do nothing. Potentials, or if you will, imaginative ideas, do not exist in isolation, on their own; they are always part of an imagination, of some actuality. However, this preexisting reality was not the whole or full reality of God. You might want to think of God as like a gigantic slab of homogeneous matter, all alike, and so nothing really there, no complexity or pattern or character or personality, absolutely nothing. These latter require that God enter into the complexity of God's won being, enter into differentiation into self and other. That is one of the things I mean when I say God has a social relationship with herself that we do not have.
I view God as a social-relational being that arises out of her social relationships with others. I view the universe as ontologically part of God's own being. I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know of any other metaphor that does justice to God's great sensitivity to all things. Each of us, for example, has am empathic relationship with our bodies. All our cells are experiencing entities. However, we have an empathic relationship with little beyond our own bodies, and much in our own bodies we seem almost oblivious to. We know best what we feel, less well what another feels, even less well yet what a bear feels. In sharp contrast, God is omnipresent in the fullest and richest sense of the word. God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling. The universe, as God's body is at once God, yet a blanket equation cannot be drawn between the two, just as a blanket equation cannot be drawn between myself and my body. That is another reason why I say God enjoys a complex social relationship with herself we do not.
I speak of God in teh feminine to highlight the passive, empathic, receptive dimensions f god, a a theme lost to traditional masculine images that stress God as the stereotypical strong male, rigid, cold, unemotional.
OK, I see where you are coming from. My view is that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization. There never was a time when God was purely unconscious, merely potential. There has always been some kind of created order. Before this universe there was another, different one, and so an ad infinitum. I am willing to accept that infinite regress. I have no trouble with it, since I assume God is eternal and also eternally creative. The priority of God as unconscious and merely potential is logical, not temporal.
Given that purely for the purposes of analysis you wanted to discuss God without a universe, then I would say what was there is something, an unconscious imagination seeking to self-actualize itself and become conscious. All creativity is the actualization of a potential. Now potentials are helpless in themselves and do nothing. Potentials, or if you will, imaginative ideas, do not exist in isolation, on their own; they are always part of an imagination, of some actuality. However, this preexisting reality was not the whole or full reality of God. You might want to think of God as like a gigantic slab of homogeneous matter, all alike, and so nothing really there, no complexity or pattern or character or personality, absolutely nothing. These latter require that God enter into the complexity of God's won being, enter into differentiation into self and other. That is one of the things I mean when I say God has a social relationship with herself that we do not have.
I view God as a social-relational being that arises out of her social relationships with others. I view the universe as ontologically part of God's own being. I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know of any other metaphor that does justice to God's great sensitivity to all things. Each of us, for example, has am empathic relationship with our bodies. All our cells are experiencing entities. However, we have an empathic relationship with little beyond our own bodies, and much in our own bodies we seem almost oblivious to. We know best what we feel, less well what another feels, even less well yet what a bear feels. In sharp contrast, God is omnipresent in the fullest and richest sense of the word. God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling. The universe, as God's body is at once God, yet a blanket equation cannot be drawn between the two, just as a blanket equation cannot be drawn between myself and my body. That is another reason why I say God enjoys a complex social relationship with herself we do not.
I speak of God in teh feminine to highlight the passive, empathic, receptive dimensions f god, a a theme lost to traditional masculine images that stress God as the stereotypical strong male, rigid, cold, unemotional.
Post #20
[Replying to post 19 by hoghead1]
!
[center]
Is this Chopra theology?[/center]
From:
http://www.chopra.com/ccl/the-law-of-pure-potentiality
Sounds like what you are talking about comes from Deepak Chopra.
Does it?
Could you tell us where you got these ideas from?
How you have arrived at these views is what I'm most interested in... thanks.
!
[center]
Is this Chopra theology?[/center]
"The source of all creation is pure consciousness . . . pure potentiality seeking expression from the unmanifest to the manifest. And when we realize that our true Self is one of pure potentiality, we align with the power that manifests everything in nature."hoghead1 wrote:
OK, I see where you are coming from. My view is that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization.
From:
http://www.chopra.com/ccl/the-law-of-pure-potentiality
Sounds like what you are talking about comes from Deepak Chopra.
Does it?
Could you tell us where you got these ideas from?
How you have arrived at these views is what I'm most interested in... thanks.
