What is this "God"?

Originally posted by telerion
There is no law that says that things "outside of matter" require no cause. You're just making stuff up, which is okay since it's all make believe anyway.

As matter is clearly caused, it follows that 'outside of matter' would not have a cause, or at least not require one.

Originally posted by telerion
Oh geez not this paltry Josh McDowell tripe. They taught me this cheap shod apologetics in my old xian school. Ok, Freak, go to town. We'll tear it up once you're done.

I don't recall offering to employ the standard, only to supply a workable standard by which history could be measured. Since you fancy yourself as having laid waste to the Christian rendering of history, why not regale us with your findings?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As matter is clearly caused, it follows that 'outside of matter' would not have a cause, or at least not require one.

Then this 'outside of matter' would be random?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As matter is clearly caused, it follows that 'outside of matter' would not have a cause, or at least not require one.

"If P then Q" does not entail "If not P then not Q". That is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent. "If P then Q" entails "If not Q then not P", this entailment is called the contrapositive of the conditional.

In short, if all matter is caused, that doesn't entail that non-material things aren't caused (or don't require causes). It merely entails that if something is uncaused, then it can't be made of matter. But it is the very question of whether God is uncaused that is at issue. Further, why should we believe that all matter is caused? After all, nobody has ever observed matter coming into existence, merely changing from one sort of energy state to another. All we have observed are causal processes operating upon existent matter.

Originally posted by bbarr
After all, nobody has ever observed matter coming into existence, merely changing from one sort of energy state to another. All we have observed are causal processes operating upon existent matter.

Actually one QM theory holds that mesons are spontaneously generated between protons and neutrons in the atom. Problem is, that they supposedly disappear.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually one QM theory holds that mesons are spontaneously generated between protons and neutrons in the atom. Problem is, that they supposedly disappear.

"..and boff!! just like that.. he was gone.."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As matter is clearly caused, it follows that 'outside of matter' would not have a cause, or at least not require one.

There is no logic behind what you wrote. Consider a similar argument.

As a woman is clearly caused, it follows that a man would not have a cause, or at least not require one.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't recall offering to employ the standard, only to supply a workable standard by which history could be measured. Since you fancy yourself as having laid waste to the Christian rendering of history, why not regale us with your findings?

Wow, you are taking this arbritrary nonsense as far as you can.

I think it's about time for you to meet Muffy.

Originally posted by telerion
Wow, you are taking this arbritrary nonsense as far as you can.

I think it's about time for you to meet Muffy.

Absolutely. Muffy merits every bit as much epistemic consideration as Freak's God.

“God”
is just one of many names
for the whole,
indivisible and vibrant

orgasm of is,
of which we are—

If you try to split apart
is from is,
to disentangle who and whom
from the intimate, inseparable entanglement,

you will only succeed
in weaving the illusion
of your own coitus interruptus—

And if you think about it,
really, really think about it, well—
who wants to spend all their time
thinking about it?

In the end, I can only hope
that it’s good for you too....

Originally posted by vistesd
“God”
is just one of many names
for the whole,
indivisible and vibrant

[b]orgasm of is,
of which we are—

If you try to split apart
is from is,
to disentangle who and whom
from the intimate, inseparable entanglement,

you will only succeed
in weaving the illusion
of your own coitus interruptus—
...[text shortened]... ll their time
thinking about it?

In the end, I can only hope
that it’s good for you too....[/b]

I liked your quote from the Spiritual Quotes thread.

"God is story."

That interpretation certainly deserves a lot more consideration than the rolling of the eyes that it got. Story is a means of engagement, expression, communion, empathy, involvement, creative exploration. And of course, good stories have morals.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I liked your quote from the Spiritual Quotes thread.

"God is story."

That interpretation certainly deserves a lot more consideration than the rolling of the eyes that it got. Story is a means of engagement, expression, communion, empathy, involvement, creative exploration. And of course, good stories have morals.

Thanks, LJ. I think Levine in the quote you posted was making the same point that Hafiz makes over and over (and Ryokan, too!). His line about “Can you taste what I’m saying?” (plus some more reading of Hafiz) triggered my post above. To taste it, you have to put the menu down and go to the kitchen. What does it mean to me if someone describes in detail the taste of a pomegranate if I’ve never tasted one myself?

With that said, the Sufi poets like Hafiz, and the Zen masters, try to put some “flavor” into the words by using poetic and paradoxical language. My metaphor—the orgasm of is, of which we are—is an attempt to point beyond the words. If someone asks what that means, I really have no other words by which to help them get it—I could only try another metaphor.

I myself spend too much time caught in the net/veil of words. I think we become conditioned from an early age to hide from the pulsing intimacy of that Is, of which we are; we waste too much time worrying “that moon.”

_____________________________

lightning in water, deep drum,
galaxies whirl in the stones—

a hawk on fire
circles the sun,
hummingbirds dance in my eyes—

clusters of bees
thrum in white blooms,
dulcimers ring in the pines—

and songs of the earth
without any words
crackle in creekwater pools:

lightning in water, deep drum, deep drum,
lightning in water, deep drum—

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As matter is clearly caused, it follows that 'outside of matter' would not have a cause, or at least not require one.

Where exactly do you get the statement that matter is clearly caused from? You have so far given no reasons at all for it. As for your "it follows" part there is no logical relation between the two parts of your sentence so there is no way it could "follow".