How can this God be immortal?

[AlchemicPhilosopher]

[HarryStottle]

[AlchemicPhilosopher]

[HarryStottle]

[AlchemicPhilosopher]

[Nito]

It is obvious that god in this story represents the Existence, Consciousness & Bliss (sat-chit-ananda), but in somewhat degraded sense. He didn't exist all of the time, because he evolved from some primordial universe; he is represented as disinterested for the everyday struggle even though he went through it himself (when he was evolving) - i.e. lacks compassion; and generally there is not much love in him (he mentions it only once as a concept), which is weird for someone who is in constant ecstasy. This simply doesn't compute, because we know that drug addicts love everyone as soon as they get "high"; how much more must God love us if He is constantly "high" in the "ecstatic whole". And here we come to the possible driving force behind the creation - Love, it always seeks sharing.

So guys, if you don't mind, I would like to continue with this thought train. This "ecstatic whole" produced this universe, right? Being the cause of everything created it is rightly to assume that all forces, concepts, energies etc. come from it, yes? What would be the attributes of this "ecstatic whole", would it be everything that makes it ecstatic, for example: Love, Knowledge, Power and Joy (Bliss)? To produce our universe, what kind of substance does It have available besides this "ecstatic stuff"?

Or do you think that It causes the Big Crunch in the original universe in order to obtain the material for this one (how would it then survive if that original matter supports its existence)? I'm in favor of "mind over matter" principle - this "ecstatic whole" is using Itself (Consciousness; "Mind") to create matter. Thus, in effect, we are made of Love (Knowledge, Power & Joy) and implicitly look for it (everywhere), crave for it (all of the time); and we want to have it forever (go back to It), which causes us to evolve in consciousness until we become one with that Love (Knowledge, Power & Joy; the "ecstatic whole" - the Universal Consciousness) we seek. If interested, you can read more

[HarryStottle]

[Asymptote]

AlchemicPhilosopher – Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:37 am
“When I was reading the Conversation with God, your God in the story states that the ultimate goal of existence is to become one with the existing mind of God and eventually create a separate universe that one can then administrate, to liken it to a web-page. This of course depicts God as a life-form, though tremendously advanced both evolutionarily and cognitively, and so I ask how that could possibly explain the origin of all life. The idea of God forces the assumption that God was always there, although this God you propose is both a product of life and the perpetuator of it, causing me to wonder how there could possibly be a beginning of life that gave rise to God. How then can this god be immortal and is this acceptable?”

---- Critical analysis is crucial in creating a solid internal belief about (the universe). The only way, I think, to create an understanding about reality is to perform experiments on the environment and form personal conclusions through the experience structured by rational analysis.

I will try approach the above quote in a lateral manner by first showing you my answer to ‘Life after Death’ scenario.

Bender - Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:20 pm : From the topic : CONVERSATION WITH GOD
“That's the exact same question I was wondering as well. It's actually the first question I'd have asked personally since the fear of eternal oblivion or just "blinking" into nothingness is actually a quite frightening prospect. “

---- My view on an ‘afterlife’ is quite simple. We perceive the whole process in the wrong direction. In order for the universe to ‘move forward’ and for us to currently exist now, live our life and then die. “Then” die… we are assuming a present and future event. Living now, die afterwards… right?

It is my understanding that the universe would have to be (beginning-less) and not (endless)… Thus confusing the need to know who and in which order did the chicken or the egg manifest? – “this God you propose is both a product of life and the perpetuator of it, causing me to wonder how there could possibly be a beginning of life that gave rise to God.”

I perceive reality as only ever having a ‘now’ which equates to a before and a after (in the eyes of true objectivity, second order cybernetics). Human perception creates a different story through the manner in which we are processing the information around us. Our biological rhythms produce states of elation and depression, hunger followed by fulfillment, fatigue followed by rest creating a rejuvenated state… All the while physical changes are occurring, but are there cycles like the sun setting and then rising in the mental/cognitive/immaterial realm? The true objective mental realm.

For the universe and us to exist, [could it be that] it always existed? – This introduces a non-linear view on the whole conundrum.

I think that it may not be an ‘afterlife’ we should focus our questioning minds... but rather how something this colossal which is evolving with meticulous intricacy… could suddenly begin [start] and then end [stop].

If we are here now, how could we just end? My view is that we were always here, and will never end/vanish… ie- die

Perhaps, one should realize that we are using words to describe something that clearly never used them (words) to create itself/create the universe…

I would also like to point out that the concept of a [ beginningless universe ] is a Buddhist concept.

Could it be that using words like {one; separate; God as a life-form; origin of all life} after realizing that we are using human intelligence to explain concepts which may not hold a static definition?

Given human perception of time as some-what longitudinal, could it be, that our perception will inherently contain a biased perception? - There is a topic on “Semantics’” that my conclusion is directing towards, so I’ll end here.

[HarryStottle]

Greetings and welcome on board Asymptote

I can't disagree with a word you've said.

However, nor can I agree with any of it!

You are speculating, as have a few million before us, about the nature of reality and positing one plausible overview. The problem we all have when we get down to that basement level is that none us can battle past the I have tried to define in Chapter 3.

Personally, my guesses about the nature of reality are primarily focussed on the fascinating possibilities being thrashed out in quantum mechanics. I am leaning towards accepting the multiverse as the "Occams Razor" explanation of some of the weirder results of some of the famous quantum experiments.

IF (and it's still a big IF) we exist in a multiverse, then any "arrangement" of matter and energy which does not breach the laws of physics (whatever they may eventually turn out to be) not only CAN happen, but must.

That being so, it may be interesting to debate which particular arrangement applies to the slice of the multiverse we appear to inhabit, but, in the wider scheme of things, it is almost irrelevant. Reality (somewhere) really could be almost anything you can imagine (provided it is physically possible). Which, as far as determing the exact arrangement for ANY universe is concerned, leads back to to straightforward empiricism. Wherever you are, you can speculate as much as you like but it's only rational to "believe" what you can actually measure and make reliable testable predictions about.

If "what we can measure" doesn't answer all the questions we may have about the universe (such as whether or not there is "life after death"), then the rational response is to design either better explanations of what we can measure, or better ways of measuring!

I have dipped my toe in that water with my own speculations about the (if it exists) and the (if they exist); both of which are my own feeble attempts at the "better explanations" which, in turn, require better experiments to test the hypotheses.