m_nwankwo:

Hi Kay17. From my crude analogy, you cannot conclude that your arm is not you. Rather your arm is a part of your body. If however you use your arm to write, or invent a piece of work. Then that invention, books or painting is not part of your body.
No, the sun rays are stellar radiations. Yes, they are emitted from the sun but they are not the sun or part of it. Stellar radiations consist of X-rays, UV, visible light, radio waves. The sun mostly contain hydrogen and then helium plus other heavy gases in smaller amount. But more importantly, the stellar radiations are a consequence of nuclear fusion. I am not aware of any scientific paper that have demonstrated that stellar radiations emitted from the sun naturally undergo nuclear fusion. If you are aware of such a paper, I will be pleased to have the citation. Besides, will you argue that a photograph of Kay 17 is Kay 17 or part of Kay 17?

I have already stated that a painting or sculptor is an expression of the volition of the artist. The artist is the creator while the painting is his work. He stands outside his work and not inside his work. 

^ Do you not feel that the situation is radically different when we are speaking of a living entity bequeathing life - and not the sun or an artist and his painting. If the painting were a living thing, would it not have to derive its life from the artist's substance. . . . ?

In the case of God we are talking about LIFE itself giving life to other things. . . is it not logical to suppose that the life given to new creatures derives from the life of God. That "breath of life" which is the living spirit . . . .where does it come from - ? The only conceivable answer is that the life comes from God. If it comes from God (as surely, everything does), surely, it is in some aspect or the other part of the life of God . . . .  .?

The OP is about creation ex nihilo. . . . if the creation is NOT from "nothing" then it is from "something" - what "something" exists in the beginning, except God alone . . . .  .?

Deep Sight:
[b]
And I just cannot get over the claim that Hindu gods are "certainly not" said to be eternal. [/b]This is the most preposterous claim I have ever heard. How far will a person go just to play definition games? Is this to be taken seriously? ? ?

In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of all being. Brahman is conceived as personal ("with qualities", impersonal ("without qualities" and/or supreme depending on the philosophical school.

The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the doctrine of self-knowledge (atma jnana).[4] According to Advaita, a liberated human being (jivanmukta) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self (see atman).

The Mundaka Upanishad says:

Auṃ - That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

It depends on what category of God you are talking about. Just like in Yoruba land we have the Orisha, and we have eledumare, and we have the Ajogun and various levels of spiritual beings, so it is in Hindu religions.

There are eternal beings, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva. Then there are Devas, which are like Orisha. Not to mention various other classes of demons. These are all finite in their existence.

Indra (Devanagari: इन्द्र) or Śakra is the King of the demi-gods or Devas and Lord of Heaven or Svargaloka in Hindu mythology. He is also the God of War, Storms, and Rainfall.

Indra is one of the chief deities in the Rigveda. He is celebrated as a demiurge who pushes up the sky, releases dawn (Ushas) from the Vala cave, and slays Vṛtra; both latter actions are central to the Soma sacrifice.


In the Rig Veda, Indra is the king of the gods and ruler of the heavens. Indra is the god of thunder and rain and a great warrior, a symbol of courage and strength. He leads the Deva (the gods who form and maintain Heaven) and the elements, such as Agni (Fire), Varuna (Water) and Surya (Sun), and constantly wages war against the opponents of the gods, the demon-like Asuras. As the god of war, he is also regarded as one of the Guardians of the directions, representing the east. As the favourite 'national' god of the Vedic Indians, Indra has about 250 hymns dedicated to him in the Rigveda.


Indra and the Ants

In this story from the Brahmavaivarta Purana,[12][13] Indra defeats Vṛtrá and releases the waters. Elevated to the rank of King of the gods, Indra orders the heavenly craftsman, Vishvakarma, to build him a grand palace. Full of pride, Indra continues to demand more and more improvements for the palace. At last, exhausted, Vishvakarma asks Brahma the Creator for help. Brahma in turn appeals to Vishnu, the Supreme Being.

Vishnu visits Indra's palace in the form of a Brahmin boy; Indra welcomes him in. Vishnu praises Indra's palace, casually adding that no former Indra had succeeded in building such a palace. At first, Indra is amused by the Brahmin boy's claim to know of former Indras. But the amusement turns to horror as the boy tells about Indra's ancestors, about the great cycles of creation and destruction, and even about the infinite number of worlds scattered through the void, each with its own Indra. The boy claims to have seen them all. During the boy's speech, a procession of ants had entered the hall. The boy saw the ants and laughed. Finally humbled, Indra asks the boy why he laughed. The boy reveals that the ants are all former Indras.

Another visitor enters the hall. He is Shiva, in the form of a hermit. On his chest lies a circular cluster of hairs, intact at the circumference but with a gap in the middle. Shiva reveals that each of these chest hairs corresponds to the life of one Indra. Each time a hair falls, one Indra dies and another replaces him.

No longer interested in wealth and honor, Indra rewards Vishvakarma and releases him from any further work on the palace. Indra himself decides to leave his life of luxury to become a hermit and seek wisdom. Horrified, Indra's wife Shuchi asks the priest Brihaspati to change her husband's mind. He teaches Indra to see the virtues of both the spiritual life and the worldly life. Thus, at the end of the story, Indra learns how to pursue wisdom while still fulfilling his kingly duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra

Deep Sight:


The OP is about creation ex nihilo. . . . if the creation is NOT from "nothing" then it is from "something" - what "something" exists in the beginning, except God alone . . . .  .?

In thinking about this closely and properly I feel that we will need to consider what Nothing is and what Something is, and what is the relationship between Nothing and Something. Can you provide us with a working definition of Nothing?

Pastor AIO:

It depends on what category of God you are talking about. Just like in Yoruba land we have the Orisha, and we have eledumare, and we have the Ajogun and various levels of spiritual beings, so it is in Hindu religions.

There are eternal beings, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva. Then there are Devas, which are like Orisha. Not to mention various other classes of demons. These are all finite in their existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra

Yes, but the point is that he categorically stated that Hindu gods are not eternal. That is false, because like you have stated, there are eternal gods in hinduism.

If he meant to say that some Hindu Gods are not eternal, he ougtht to have specifically stated so.

Furthermore, his case is worsened by the fact that we were speaking of the "God" that is the origin of all existence - which in hinduism would be Brahman - and Brahman is definitely eternal.

So there is absolutely no place or context for his misrepresentation.

Pastor AIO:

In thinking about this closely and properly I feel that we will need to consider what Nothing is and what Something is, and what is the relationship between Nothing and Something. Can you provide us with a working definition of Nothing?

There is nothing like "nothingness" anywhere in existence. By definition, "nothingness" is nothing - and as such does not exist.

@m_nwa

I think we should keep it pure. An arm if severed is still part of an individual likewise artistic expression; its part of one's personality, as an extension.

Perhaps you missed it. Those are not criterion. Those were actually the wordings of the definition. However it seems to me that there is no definition proferred that would suit you - given that its quite obvious you do not intend to ever proceed beyond haggling over definitions.

This is all the more sad because i very specifically wrote (and please note the bolded) -

"I am unable to countenance it seriously because in my humble view everyone has a basic idea of what the word "God" refers to in these discussions. . . . This basic property of the term "God" is so virtually universal to all precepts of the word "God" as used within Atheistic/Theistic discussions"

There you again projecting your own belief onto others. Just assuming everyone has the same basic concept of God. Saying it is universal does not make it so. But I am not surprised you would continue to do so anyway.

At its core fundamental, of course they do. Would you seriously claim that most humans who believe in God do not regard it to be an eternal being which is the source of all that exists?

I would dearly love to hear you repeat that preposterous claim.

I have said severally that it is only natural that varying cultures would embellish that fundamental precept with their varying myths, lores and concepts - but it is absolutely false to assert that the vast majority do not retain that fundamental precept of God as an eternal being which is the source of all that exists.

Again, there are beliefs that do not share this definition. Also, there are beliefs with additional criterion that would contradict. Especially in more anthropomorphic religious beliefs where gods/goddesses literally blink into existence or even die.

Lol. Tell me you're kidding here, just tell me! Existing outside temporal time and space is exactly what being eternal is described as. Good grief. Let's have a serious discussion please.

I think it is silly as well, but that did not stop them from saying. After all they believe God is the "origin" of time and space, which would be problematic if it already existed within that framework.

Obviously, for hindusim, you never heard of Brahman.

From the hindu schools I am familiar with, Brahman is treated as a "force" permeates everything in the universe and not a personal being in and of itself. But I would not be surprised if under the influence/competition of Islam and Christianity, some syncretism occurred. Brahma the creator deity on the other hand was clearly born.

For Shinto, the very word itself means "the way of the gods". . .yes,  this is one religion that does not speak of a supreme being along with Buddhism. But neither reject the notion: they are silent on it, preferring to deal with the essentials of the natural cycles that are pertinent to man.

That is just it. Your definition of God is exclusionary to others. That was always my point. It is silly for people to try and predict/assume what others mean on this issue. The lack of clarity always surfaces in these discussions. Furthermore, the discussion is on the merit of the concept. The clarity, meaning, coherence of the concept must be ascertained eventually. It is silly to just assume that every one definition satisfies these criteria already. Especially, when laughed at peoples belief that God exists outside of time(there concept of it anyway). That is why I always say do it first.

At all events this is not relevant in light of the fact that I very specifically referred to the word God - 'as used in atheistic/ theistic discussions' - and I hope that you will be honest enough to admit that there exists a basic precept of what that word refers to in such discussions. If you cannot admit that, i will not bother any further.

No. People have these discussions assuming they know what the other is talking about. If you where talking to a Christian, the basic precept of what God is would be far larger. The same for a Muslim, Hindu, Jews, etc. . . As far as they were concerned your definition would be at best incomplete. That is important to know for a discussion. You cannot treat the Christian concept of God the same as yours because there is significantly more to it than eternal mind/being.

It has at all material times been clear that God is not said to be physical. It shows up your interest in definition games, if you will go so far as to seek clarification on that.

You say it is a-physical, yet define it in terms of the physical universe. When you refer to mind/being, it is in terms of what you have observed in the physical universe. When you talk about time(eternal), it is with respect to observation in physical universe. If you are going to say God is a-physical, it is illogical to define it purely in terms of the physical universe. That is what I mean when I speak of coherency. You may see it as inane semantics, but I do not.

With all due respect, a non physical, eternal, mind/being sounds like an example of word salad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously

Matter cannot be eternal in the past because it is not self-existent - it does not have the properties of self existent things - such as intangibility and immutability. I have explained this a gazillion times on this forum.

I assume by intangibility you mean cannot be sensed by any degree and not just simply by the sense of touch. If that is the  case, how can we ever perceive its existence at any level. If it is intangible how is supposed to interact with physical universe in the first place. It is illogical to amalgamate two mutually exclusive concepts(intangible and origin of the tangible objects which includes minds/beings).  

For example, if the Sun acts an origin for light, then you can sense the sun through the light it generates. It is tangible precisely because it can be sensed/interacted with. The sun would be intangible if it did not interact in any way(no gravitational field,EM fields,mass ejections etc. . .) with the Universe. But what meaning would/could an intangible sun possibly have? I would say none. That is the criticism I level at your God definition.

Deep Sight:

^ Do you not feel that the situation is radically different when we are speaking of a living entity bequeathing life - and not the sun or an artist and his painting. If the painting were a living thing, would it not have to derive its life from the artist's substance. . . . ?

In the case of God we are talking about LIFE itself giving life to other things. . . is it not logical to suppose that the life given to new creatures derives from the life of God. That "breath of life" which is the living spirit . . . .where does it come from - ? The only conceivable answer is that the life comes from God. If it comes from God (as surely, everything does), surely, it is in some aspect or the other part of the life of God . . . .  .?

The OP is about creation ex nihilo. . . . if the creation is NOT from "nothing" then it is from "something" - what "something" exists in the beginning, except God alone . . . .  .?

Hi Deepsight. Thank you for your comment. I clearly stated that my analogy is a crude one that can only give a faint reflection of the reality. But even this faint reflection is enough to form the right kind of conception if a soul tries to experience what is said. Now human beings also creates or rather form things that have "life" and yet these things have not a particle of the human spirit in them. Thought forms and intuitive forms of people are works of man but they have no essence in them that is of the human spirit.

God in my crude definition is the primordial Life or primordial Light or primordial Energy. Naturally, God who is the primordial Light radiates. The radiations are a natural consequence that God is. These divine emanations of God contain among others the breath of life that is the human spirit. Thus the direct origin of everything that is not the Almighty God is the radiations of God. You think that that since God is life, then everything that has life must have derived the life from the life that is in God. The divine emanations of God has life too but it is a reflection or a lower gradation of the living Life (GOD). The Life in the divine emanations of God contain all that is necessary for creation and creatures to emerge. God wills creation into existence by permitting his radiations to cool off, precipitate into cosmic seeds, explosion of these seeds and the subsequent emergence of subsequent creation. The primordial creation just came into existence once the almighty GOD willed it because the cool off from the divine emanations still retain enough "life" in them to form instantaneously. Now I do not think that it is difficult to imagine that there are various gradations of the life that is in the radiations of God. The human spirit is a radiation of God, so are animal souls and so are angels, etc, and yet these are different species or gradation of the radiation of God. But the radiation of God is not God and herein lies the point I am making. Every radiation of God even the divine radiations are substantiate, that is they have a form and and an image of them can be made. But God alone is unsubstantiate. It is not possible in my experiencing of creation to find the unsubstantiate essence that is God in substantiate beings. All substantiate beings have substantiate essence but never an unsubstantiate essence. Thus, the Almighty God, the primordial LIFE is not in man or any other substantiate beings even if they are divine beings. Thus, the quest to find God within man is a waste of spiritual energy. Man is not God, nor part of God. Part of the reasons for spiritual poverty is that many a man harbors the desire to be God or a part of God, thus he waste his energy trying to be what he can never be and then fail to be what he can be, a purified human spirit that consciously stands in the power of God.

Creation is not from nothing. God created from his mantle, that is God willed some of his emanations to cool off and take own form. "Both" God and his divine emanations are eternal for the divine emanations are a consequence that God is. My perception is that the Eternal Light that is God have radiated for all eternity. Creation is simply an extension of Gods radiations to what I have previously depicted as a cosmic void. Stay blessed.

Deep Sight:

There is nothing like "nothingness" anywhere in existence. By definition, "nothingness" is nothing - and as such does not exist.

Then God must create out of something.
Why then can we not consider that there was a state of the universe prior to what we currently have? Since there couldn't have been nothingness?

m_nwankwo:

Definitions and concepts cannot accurately capture what God is. In spite of this I will make an attempt in the knowledge that this definition is a very faint reflection of reality.

Okay.

m_nwankwo:

God is the primordial source of all energy. One can also say that God is the primordial source of Life or that God is primordial Life or primordial Energy. Anything else that exists or will exist derive its life or energy from GOD.

Energy and life are two different concepts. Why are you conflating them? Which one comes first, energy or life?

m_nwankwo:

In other words, only GOD is alive, everything else derives there life from God. What scientists are conversant with are various forms of energy with material universe. There are energies in all creations, not just in material universe. These energies originated from the radiations of God.

Only God is alive? Are bacteria and plants alive? It seems the concept of life you're using here is one quite different from what is understood so what idea of life are you using? Also, what do you mean by "radiations of God"?

m_nwankwo:

In material universe energies are secondly radiations of primordial spiritual beings created by God and these primordial spiritual beings are the actual image of God. The human spirit that is man is simply an image or a reflection of these primordial spiritual beings. The primordial beings are of unimaginable size that one of them can hold our entire material universe in the palm of its hands. And yet even these primordial beings are creatures of God.  Best Wishes.

How do you know these things about these primordial beings e.g their size? Also, do you agree with the theory of evolution?

Kay 17 you said in your opening post:

The idea of God, as the supreme uncaused Cause, helps in escaping the irrationality of springing out of an absolutely unproductive void -- nothing. But in an empty world, there would be God and nothing, but now there is us and something. Does that mean your God created from NOTHING? Also in your view, is design necessary for a creation out of nothing, with no rule or character to conform with?

I would agree with the first part of your submission that God as a necessary being is absolutely required if one wishes to avoid the utterly irrational proposition that things which were not in existence suddenly and spontaneously popped into existence from NOTHING. That is a metaphysical impossibility. Being does not, cannot, and never will, emerge from non-being. The problem I notice in discussions of this sort is that far too many skeptics and atheists have a twisted and unrealistic understanding of the word ‘NOTHING’.

Quite frankly, I am amazed that this same misunderstanding has continued to appear in discussions of this sort. When people who claim to be able to demonstrate that being can emerge from non-being (from nothing) attempt to explain this deeply irrational stance, you can immediately see that they treat the ‘NOTHING” as if it were indeed ‘Something’.  This is to say that they playing semantic games and not quite coming to grips with the philosophical meaning of ‘nothing’ (i.e. not anything at all). “Nothing’ or ‘Nothingness’ does not imply vacuum, or void, or empty; has no components or parts, and certainly no attributes; is not governed by any physical laws and certainly cannot be meaningfully thought of as involving any interactions. To be painfully tedious, nothingness (nothing) is simply what it states: the non-existence of anything at all. This is a concept that naturalists or empirical materialists sometimes have a hard time to come to grips with.

Now, what does it mean when people say that God created “ex nihilo”? This simply means that God did not create the universe out of any previously existing matter; he created literally out of nothing. There was no pre-existing material substance which he used (as it were) to create all physical reality. This happens to have been confirmed scientifically as well. It boggles the mind to read people in 2011 say something like “matter is eternal and merely changes form”. To me, it sounds like reading someone saying that the earth is flat. But I suppose I shouldn’t judge harshly because I must admit, sometimes it can be hard for people to imagine that at some point in the past  the universe came into being with all matter, energy, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, and all the initial set of conditions and constants. To suppose there was some pre-existing matter which reorganized or reassembled into this universe is to work with an outdated view. Frankly, no one who is familiar with the state of current cosmology or astrophysics will say this—not with the degree of scientific and evidentiary support the Big Bang model currently enjoys.

To answer your last question as to whether creation out of nothing presupposes design, I’ll answer thus: logically, one is not committed to saying that creation out of nothing must presuppose design. In other words, we can quite imagine that it possible for a God capable of creating all matter and energy to have done so without imbuing said creation with a final cause/purpose/design. That is, there is no logical contradiction inherent in stating that “a maximally powerful God exists” and “God created the universe without any teleological implications.”  

However, as one begins to probe the universe, one will quickly and immediately recognize the exquisite and mind-numbingly precise degree of fine-tuning that is required for this universe to have continued to exist immediately after the Big Bang event and further to have continued to expand as it has to eventually support life. Now before anyone starts muttering “the anthropic principle”, you should realize that I am not personally invested in the appearance of life per se, as I am invested on the idea that the universe, without these initial conditions and constants, without this exquisite fine-tuning, would have collapsed in on itself shortly after the Big Bang creation and thus ceased to exist. This is before we even get to the possibility of other macro-worldly phenomena like stars, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters, black holes, nebulae etc.

Besides, as you continue to investigate, you will see unmistakable and tell-tale signs of design or fine-tuning that permeate the universe. It is also important to note that not everything exhibits a teleological imperative. Nevertheless, if you choose to be unconvinced about the clearly evident signs of design or fine-tuning in the universe, I have no quarrel with you. But, unless you can conclusively demonstrate why anyone should doubt a design inference, anyone is within his/her rational right to hold and affirm what is painstakingly clear.

@1godfather

I dont there is any scientific theory that asserts something or an activity out of nothing. Nothing frequently referred to is space loaded with matter and energy. Its contradictory to assert a quality of barreness is productivity. Creating from nothing is impossible and only made possible by an omnipotent being (with its own logical contradictions).

You also raise finetuning, but IF something is created out of nothing, why does it need any design? What is the role of a design to an entity living in nothing?

@m_nwa

Consequently the radiations are reflections are the God self. They are life like their creator, more of extensions. Or whats ur test of constituting a "part"

@deepsight

I do agree with you on this line, that we are all from that something, we are extensions of it; likewise the general character of all "creation" could accurately be the character of that something. Our "design" reminds us of the "design" of that something

thehomer:

Okay.

Energy and life are two different concepts. Why are you conflating them? Which one comes first, energy or life?

Only God is alive? Are bacteria and plants alive? It seems the concept of life you're using here is one quite different from what is understood so what idea of life are you using? Also, what do you mean by "radiations of God"?

How do you know these things about these primordial beings e.g their size? Also, do you agree with the theory of evolution?

Hi Thehomer. Thanks for your comments. I respond as follows

In the sense that I am using them, energy and life are not two different things. Remember that I used them to give a faint conception of the abilities or attributes that are in God. It is for that reason that I did not just call it energy or life but called it primordial energy or primordial life. Primordial Energy, Primordial Life, Primordial Time, Primordial Light, Primordial Will, Primordial Consciousness, Primordial Power, etc are abilities that are in God. Thus, they are eternal, that is they have always existed, that is, they have no beginning and no end. Thus, since these abilities of God are eternal, it is not relevant in my view to ask which of the abilities or attributes of God that come first. All abilities in God have no beginning and no end.

Yes, only God is truly alive. All else including humans, angels, viruses, bacteria, plants, rocks, water,  universes, creations etc, are alive because God loaned them reflections or images of LIFE. In other words, everything that is not God derive their life or existence from God either instantaneously or through development and are absolutely dependent on God for its existence. God however is absolutely independent of everything else. This again is a faint reflection of reality because there is no concept in and outside of creation that can capture the reality of God. Even if God revels the reality, it is beyond the ability of anything within creation or outside of creation to understand. Thus God cloaks the reality so that it can become comprehensible to creatures within and outside of creation. Such clocking of the reality also goes hand in hand with a narrowing down. It is for this reason that I insist that concepts are a faint reflection of reality.

Radiations of God are the emanations that comes from God. All that exist(counsciously or uncounsciously) originated from the radiations of God. Thus various  creations (material and non-material), the divine worlds before creation and all the creatures that inhabit them as well as the works of those creatures are various gradations of the radiation of God. Simply put, everything that is not God is the radiation of God. 

I came to the "knowledge" of Primordial beings and Primordial creation when I was permitted to experience the work "In The Light of Truth-The Grail Message". In my spiritual journey, spiritual guides do show me radiated pictures of primordial beings and its from these spiritual experiences that I gave a literal conception of their size. There are also a lot of teaching by my guides but I will not dwell on them.


Yes, I do believe in evolution but not exactly in the same as many of my fellow biologists do. I have in many discussions on his forum given my view on biological evolution. I do not remember which threads now but if you search my posts of 2-4 years ago you will find my views. In brief, I believe that our present human body did not just emerge from the air but is a result of millions of years of evolution. Unlike fellow biologists, my conviction is that this biological evolution is an expression of the will of God. That is, God created the process of evolution and programmed it to result in the emergence of several species including the human physical body. When the evolutionary program written by God for the emergence of the human body have attained its goal, then God animated this human body by giving it a breath of life, that is is the spirit. Thus when the spirit that has its origin in the spiritual kingdom of God incarnated in a human-like body that looks almost exactly like the ones we have today, that human-like body got transformed to the human body that we know today and resulted in the birth of man. Thus the creation of man has two main processes, biological evolution that in the course of millions of years resulted in the emergence of human like animals. These animals which become extinct served as bridge for the birth of man. Thus when these noble human like animal copulated, instead of an animal soul incarnating, the human spirit incarnated. The incarnation of the spirit then transformed the animal bodies into the present human bodies. For several generations, these human like animals lived but did not sexually mix with the new humans and over the course of time the noble animals become extinct having fulfilled their purpose according to divine will, that is, to provide the biological bodies for the incarnation of the spirit and thus the birth of man. While scientists are correct with the principle of evolution, they do not know the details of how it happened. But most importantly, biological evolution is a manifestation of the will of God, natural selection is just one of the several physical manifestation of the divine intelligence that initiates, maintains and determines the tree of life. Thus the emergence and diversity of biological species abinitio was programmed by God. Thus a dog did not become a dog just because of natural selection but the tree of life for a dog was set in motion by God. Even the natural environments that interact with the gene pool are all manifestation of the program that God has written in the germs that develop to various species via evolution. Best Wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Thehomer. Thanks for your comments. I respond as follows

In the sense that I am using them, energy and life are not two different things. Remember that I used them to give a faint conception of the abilities or attributes that are in God. It is for that reason that I did not just call it energy or life but called it primordial energy or primordial life. Primordial Energy, Primordial Life, Primordial Time, Primordial Light, Primordial Will, Primordial Consciousness, Primordial Power, etc are abilities that are in God. Thus, they are eternal, that is they have always existed, that is, they have no beginning and no end. Thus, since these abilities of God are eternal, it is not relevant in my view to ask which of the abilities or attributes of God that come first. All abilities in God have no beginning and no end.

Yes, only God is truly alive. All else including humans, angels, viruses, bacteria, plants, rocks, water,  universes, creations etc, are alive because God loaned them reflections or images of LIFE. In other words, everything that is not God derive their life or existence from God either instantaneously or through development and are absolutely dependent on God for its existence. God however is absolutely independent of everything else. This again is a faint reflection of reality because there is no concept in and outside of creation that can capture the reality of God. Even if God revels the reality, it is beyond the ability of anything within creation or outside of creation to understand. Thus God cloaks the reality so that it can become comprehensible to creatures within and outside of creation. Such clocking of the reality also goes hand in hand with a narrowing down. It is for this reason that I insist that concepts are a faint reflection of reality.

Radiations of God are the emanations that comes from God. All that exist(counsciously or uncounsciously) originated from the radiations of God. Thus various  creations (material and non-material), the divine worlds before creation and all the creatures that inhabit them as well as the works of those creatures are various gradations of the radiation of God. Simply put, everything that is not God is the radiation of God. 

I came to the "knowledge" of Primordial beings and Primordial creation when I was permitted to experience the work "In The Light of Truth-The Grail Message". In my spiritual journey, spiritual guides do show me radiated pictures of primordial beings and its from these spiritual experiences that I gave a literal conception of their size. There are also a lot of teaching by my guides but I will not dwell on them.


Yes, I do believe in evolution but not exactly in the same as many of my fellow biologists do. I have in many discussions on his forum given my view on biological evolution. I do not remember which threads now but if you search my posts of 2-4 years ago you will find my views. In brief, I believe that our present human body did not just emerge from the air but is a result of millions of years of evolution. Unlike fellow biologists, my conviction is that this biological evolution is an expression of the will of God. That is, God created the process of evolution and programmed it to result in the emergence of several species including the human physical body. When the evolutionary program written by God for the emergence of the human body have attained its goal, then God animated this human body by giving it a breath of life, that is is the spirit. Thus when the spirit that has its origin in the spiritual kingdom of God incarnated in a human-like body that looks almost exactly like the ones we have today, that human-like body got transformed to the human body that we know today and resulted in the birth of man. Thus the creation of man has two main processes, biological evolution that in the course of millions of years resulted in the emergence of human like animals. These animals which become extinct served as bridge for the birth of man. Thus when these noble human like animal copulated, instead of an animal soul incarnating, the human spirit incarnated. The incarnation of the spirit then transformed the animal bodies into the present human bodies. For several generations, these human like animals lived but did not sexually mix with the new humans and over the course of time the noble animals become extinct having fulfilled their purpose according to divine will, that is, to provide the biological bodies for the incarnation of the spirit and thus the birth of man. While scientists are correct with the principle of evolution, they do not know the details of how it happened. But most importantly, biological evolution is a manifestation of the will of God, natural selection is just one of the several physical manifestation of the divine intelligence that initiates, maintains and determines the tree of life. Thus the emergence and diversity of biological species abinitio was programmed by God. Thus a dog did not become a dog just because of natural selection but the tree of life for a dog was set in motion by God. Even the natural environments that interact with the gene pool are all manifestation of the program that God has written in the germs that develop to various species via evolution. Best Wishes.

Thank you for your response. I doubt that we'll be able to communicate effectively because we're not using words in a similar manner and the methods that we agree on as being appropriate in acquiring information are simply too different. e.g what is the difference between primordial life and primordial energy? Simply sticking the word primordial before a noun isn't a satisfactory solution.
Then the idea that rocks and water are alive is questionable to me.
Also, "knowing" through personal spiritual guides is questionable given what we know about humans and the rest of the natural world.
Finally, the idea of evolution you presented is quite incomprehensible to me.

Thanks again.

thehomer:

Thank you for your response. I doubt that we'll be able to communicate effectively because we're not using words in a similar manner and the methods that we agree on as being appropriate in acquiring information are simply too different. e.g what is the difference between primordial life and primordial energy? Simply sticking the word primordial before a noun isn't a satisfactory solution.
Then the idea that rocks and water are alive is questionable to me.
Also, "knowing" through personal spiritual guides is questionable given what we know about humans and the rest of the natural world.
Finally, the idea of evolution you presented is quite incomprehensible to me.

Thanks again.

Hi Thehomer. Thanks for your comments. Best Wishes.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Deepsight. Thank you for your comment. I clearly stated that my analogy is a crude one that can only give a faint reflection of the reality. But even this faint reflection is enough to form the right kind of conception if a soul tries to experience what is said. Now human beings also creates or rather form things that have "life" and yet these things have not a particle of the human spirit in them. Thought forms and intuitive forms of people are works of man but they have no essence in them that is of the human spirit.

God in my crude definition is the primordial Life or primordial Light or primordial Energy. Naturally, God who is the primordial Light radiates. The radiations are a natural consequence that God is. These divine emanations of God contain among others the breath of life that is the human spirit. Thus the direct origin of everything that is not the Almighty God is the radiations of God. You think that that since God is life, then everything that has life must have derived the life from the life that is in God. The divine emanations of God has life too but it is a reflection or a lower gradation of the living Life (GOD). The Life in the divine emanations of God contain all that is necessary for creation and creatures to emerge. God wills creation into existence by permitting his radiations to cool off, precipitate into cosmic seeds, explosion of these seeds and the subsequent emergence of subsequent creation. The primordial creation just came into existence once the almighty GOD willed it because the cool off from the divine emanations still retain enough "life" in them to form instantaneously. Now I do not think that it is difficult to imagine that there are various gradations of the life that is in the radiations of God. The human spirit is a radiation of God, so are animal souls and so are angels, etc, and yet these are different species or gradation of the radiation of God. But the radiation of God is not God and herein lies the point I am making. Every radiation of God even the divine radiations are substantiate, that is they have a form and and an image of them can be made. But God alone is unsubstantiate. It is not possible in my experiencing of creation to find the unsubstantiate essence that is God in substantiate beings. All substantiate beings have substantiate essence but never an unsubstantiate essence. Thus, the Almighty God, the primordial LIFE is not in man or any other substantiate beings even if they are divine beings. Thus, the quest to find God within man is a waste of spiritual energy. Man is not God, nor part of God. Part of the reasons for spiritual poverty is that many a man harbors the desire to be God or a part of God, thus he waste his energy trying to be what he can never be and then fail to be what he can be, a purified human spirit that consciously stands in the power of God.

Creation is not from nothing. God created from his mantle, that is God willed some of his emanations to cool off and take own form. "Both" God and his divine emanations are eternal for the divine emanations are a consequence that God is. My perception is that the Eternal Light that is God have radiated for all eternity. Creation is simply an extension of Gods radiations to what I have previously depicted as a cosmic void. Stay blessed.

I hear you, although I am not sure that I entirely agree (and of course, the truth is not contingent on my opinion) - in my view a thought form does not have conscious life in the way that a human being does - albeit that all life emanates from God.

You have said that humans originate from the radiations of God and not God itself. However you also maintain that the radiations emanate from God. This only pushes the question of origin one step backward but does not change it. If we originate from God's radiations and the radiations originate with God, then we originate from something that comes from within God - and this is of course the same thing as saying that we proceed from God.

The many layers or gradations do not change the ultimate origin. The ultimate origin always remains the ultimate origin. I may for example issue a volition. The volition may issue something else which we will call x. X may then issue Y. Y may then issue Z. When the question is asked as to what the origin of Z is, one may rightly say that Y is the origin. This will not change the fact that the ultimate origin is me. And in that respect, there will be some element, no mater how miniscule, or some aspect, no matter how changed, of my nature will manifest in Z. In the same way there are some aspects or elements of the nature of God which of course manifest in human beings. This is because God is the ultimate origin.

This does not mean that we will be said to be God or the same as God - but only, and necessarily that there is an imprint, however miniscule of what proceeds from God as the basis of our own existence. God is the compound and complete picture of all reality - it encapsulates the incomprehensible infinity of all things, and as such, no human can ever be as God - but there will be elements of this or that infinite thing here and there as imprints within everything that proceeds from God - including humans. Indeed in the case of sentient knowing beings such as humans I am persuaded that there are multiple reflections of the nature of God. As these relections are living, it could only be that these are in some sense or the other (for I know not what sense) still parts of the infinity of God.

It seems very simple and clear to me - to put it as simply as saying that all things proceed from God.

I do not claim that human beings are God itself, but there are certainly many people who claim that this or that particular human being is God itself. As you well know, I resent such claims.

Now just an addittional point on the example discussed regarding the sun. I asked myself the question - is there sunlight inside the sun? This seemed an absurd question - but of course the idea was to analogize and make an extrapolation re: God. The analogy being that God's radiations are not existing "inside" God, but of course only "outside" God - and such an analogy would render you correct when you say that the fact that humans originate from God's radiations does not mean that they originate "inside" God.

However, reflecting on this further, I asked myself if there are not elements emitted by the sun which are actually from inside the sun. And in reality, of course there are. For example -

The spectrum of the Sun's solar radiation is close to that of a black body with a temperature of about 5,800 K.[8] The Sun emits EM radiation across most of the electromagnetic spectrum. Although the Sun produces Gamma rays as a result of the nuclear fusion process, these super high energy photons are converted to lower energy photons before they reach the Sun's surface and are emitted out into space, so the Sun doesn't give off any gamma rays to speak of. The Sun does, however, emit X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and even Radio waves.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

What the foregoing discloses is that some "super high energy photons are converted to lower energy photons before they reach the Sun's surface and are emitted out into space"

Please note particularly the bolded text above. These particular photons which are emitted out into space actually pre-exist in different form within the sun and in its processes are converted to lower energy photons and emitted into space.

This shows me that some elements emitted by the sun will definitely exist inside the sun itself, before being emitted in the total spectrum along with other elements.

What this analogy does for me is to suggest (and I believe this only makes sense, since we speak that God does not create ex - nihilo) that the radiations that come from God obviously contain the seed particles from within God. Thus that indeed, originating from the radiations, will surely mean originating from something that came from "inside" God.

It is very interesting for me that it speaks about the conversion of those photons to lower energy levels, because that surely would tally with your understanding of the fact that beings such as us are indeed lower energy conversions  - in terms of the cooling off of God's radiations.

NB: i place marks around the word "inside" when i speak of inside God - because but for the lack of words, I do not know if it is possible to speak of an "inside" of God or not, since God is, in my view, intangible.

@DeepSight,

I sense that your spirit understands what I have been trying to convey. As long as you conceive that what proceeds from God are images or reflections of the life that is in God, then you get the point I am making. It is impossible for what is finite (radiations of God) to be part of or contain an essence of Infinity (God). Infinity, Eternity, Perfection are intrinsic abilities in God. What proceeds from God, that is, the radiations of God are finite and thus has nothing of God in them. Infinity cannot become finite and what is finite cannot become Infinity. I think it is simple. God has no form because he is primordial Infinity and Unsubstantiality. How then will that which has form or is substantiate contain even a miniscule particle of Infinity or Unsubstantiality. Stay blessed.

I think Deepsight has adequately answered the first question.

But whats the role of design of creation, when infused into a void world?

Deep Sight:

It seems very simple and clear to me - to put it as simply as saying that all things proceed from God.

@Deepsight.
I disagree with your conclusion above. A better conclusion will be that the power that drives everything is the power of God or the power that proceeds from God.

First of all, radiation of God is not God or a part of God. Power creates pressure, it’s the pressure created by the power (God) that we call radiation of God. Even in the physical world, every system that is powerful radiates. An electric wire creates pressure around it when high electric currents pass through the wire. This pressure is not part of the wire neither is it part of the electric energy in the wire. Any energy that proceeds from this induced energy around the powerful wire cannot be traced back to the energy inside the wire. So even though X is a result of Y and Z proceeds from Y, Z cannot always be a part of X, traced back to X or carry any elements of X. Consider an electric transformer and how it works. Just placing a secondary coil near and energized primary coil is enough to induce electricity on the secondary coil. Anything proceeding from the secondary coil is not part of the primary coil. Energy works that way. Consider God as being the primary coil of a transformer, and all other beings as being the secondary coil of the transformer. Every energy in the secondary coil drives from the influx or pressure(radiation) created by the primary coil, and not part of the primary coil itself. Everything outside of God owes its existence in the radiation of God; and this radiation does not carry any part of God within it. This radiation is simply the pressure emanated by the Power, life and Light which reside only in God. If you don’t like the sun and its radiation analogy; then consider the relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer. Both are two different systems, not touching in any way; but the pressure or influx of energy in one drives the other. It can be likened to the relationship between God (The one and only power) and His radiation or creations.

From what I draw from the Grail Message, the radiations(from which creation later arouse) of God when untransformed and left within its natural boundary of the Divine plane remain unformed radiations; left this way, no created beings could have arisen from it. Divine substantial beings are different; because these were not created per-se. These are eternal beings, and having their origin in the radiation of God, hence are not parts of God themselves; only that they did not need the fiat “Let there be light” before they arouse.

Creation started with “Let there be light” when God allowed his radiations(That couldn’t take on form in the Divine plane) to proceed farther and took on form in the creative power of Imanuel, who is the words “let there be light” in living form. This is the transition necessary before creation could arise. Any being or creature that arises after this transition or within creation does not proceed, of their own accord, straight from the radiation of God. They had to pass through a transition first; this transition is the act of creation. The issue of being parts of God is totally out of the question; because the radiations of God are not parts of God like I already explained.

Just as potter collect clay from the earth to mold the clay to form a pot; this is the process of creating a pot. It will be wrong to say that pot proceeds straight from the ground or clay. What proceeds from the ground or clay is the material with which the pot is made. For the pot to arise, the clay had to be transformed by the hands of the potter.

In the analogy, the pot represents created beings (i.e. primordial spiritual beings) in creation; the earth and clay represents the radiation of God; and the potter represents the creative will of God, Imanuel. Thus only concerning top part of primordial creation and above it can one rightly say that everything proceeds from God; keeping in mind that this “proceeds” does not mean that they carry parts of God within them. The basic elements in primordial creation proceeds from the radiation of God and the forms are molded by the Will of God Himself, thus molded in accord with the will of God by the hand of God Himself.

In the case of human spirits(those that developed from spirit germs); it is different, For in this case the spirit germs is left to mold itself, make itself a copy of one of the Primordial spiritual being. The various wrong forms that arise in the process of the spirit molding or creating itself have absolutely nothing to do with God. The human spirit can only link itself with the creative will of God, if out of its free volition it decides to mold itself to become a replica of one of the prototypes molded by the creative will of God. The wrongly developed human beings do not proceed from God in anyway.

In this case, the molding is not done directly by the potter. The clay is left to mold itself against one of the prototypes molded by the potter. If the clay molds itself against something alien to the will of the potter, such a form arising from such wrong molding has nothing to do with the potter and does not proceed from Potter.

Therefore in subsequent creation, the basic elements proceeds from the radiation of God, not God Himself; but not all forms proceed from the will of God. For example, the earth, the way it is today both in form, and governance does not proceed from the will of God

The basic elements that make up everything proceeds from the radiation of God. For creation and everything in it to arise, the radiations of God had to be transformed first in the process of creation. And the radiations of God are not God neither are they parts of God.

The radiations themselves are only emernation or pressure created by the power that is God. Hence there is a gap between God and His radiation; in reality there is nothing in the vicinity of God. Anything originating from that radiation cannot be said to have proceeded from God in the maner that you are implying.

What I wrote here is only for those have read the Grail message, for Deepsite. If you are not familiar with the Grail Message, you may find it very hard to follow this post.

Thanks

justcool:

An electric wire creates pressure around it when high electric currents pass through the wire. This pressure is not part of the wire neither is it part of the electric energy in the wire.

In this case, the wire is not the source of the electricity - it is merely a conductor, and for this reason this analogy does not resonate with me. Nevertheless, you are by far the grand master of analogies. Can you give me an analogy that fulfills this criteria: something that is itself the source of an emanation and the emanation of which does not contain any element of the thing which is the source.

The analogy of the sun failed because we could see that the sun contains some of the elements that it emanates.

Deep Sight:


The analogy of the sun failed because we could see that the sun contains some of the elements that it emanates.

I do not see how you conclude that the analogy of the sun failed. What exactly are the elements in the rays of the sun that are found in the sun? How exactly are super energy photons the same as low energy photons? Stay blessed

Deep Sight:

In this case, the wire is not the source of the electricity - it is merely a conductor, and for this reason this analogy does not resonate with me.

Dear Deep sight. In reality there is nothing like the source of electricity, electricity is just movement of electrons or charges across a conductor. Once there is a potential difference or EMF across a conductor charges flow. All the charges are already in the conductor; only that creating a potential difference across the conductor causes the charges to flow.

The point that I was trying to make is that where ever high energy is at work, this energy creates pressure around it; this pressure or radiation emanates from the charged object, yet neither having any particle of the object nor the energy in the object.

Deep Sight:

Nevertheless, you are by far the grand master of analogies. Can you give me an analogy that fulfills this criteria: something that is itself the source of an emanation and the emanation of which does not contain any element of the thing which is the source.

Okay I will give you another two analogies:
(1)Consider a magnet! It creates pressure which we call magnetic flux around it. This flux that emanates from the magnet but contains no element of the magnet. Consider a piece of metal, once magnetized(energized), this energy creates flux or magnetic field around the piece of iron. This field or emanation does not contain any element of the iron; neither is the field a part of the magnet. The flux itself is not part of the magnet, it is only a consequence of the magnet.

(2) Consider when you strike a gong! By hitting the gong with another metal you have transferred energy to the gong. This energy causes the gong to vibrate. This vibration creates pressure around the gong. This pressure emanates from the vibrating gong and travels through the air as sound waves. Once again we see an energized object creating pressure around it, pressure which causes emanation or radiation. The sound that emanates from the vibrating gong does not contain any elements of the gong; neither does it contain any element of the original energy that you transferred to the gong by hitting it. At best you can say that the energy has been transformed from mechanical energy to sound energy. The mechanical energy remains on the vibrating gong, but the pressure that this vibration causes creates the sound energy that emanates from the vibrating gong. Once again, this emanating sound energy does not contain any element or particle of the gong, neither does it contain any element of the original mechanical energy. This is coarse analogy that faintly conveys the idea.

By the same token, the radiation of God; contains energy or is energy emanating from the Power that is God. This energy does not contain any particle or element of God. Neither is it the Power of God as such; rather it is pressure created by the Power of God; it is the power of God that propels or creates this energy. The Power of God remains in God and within God. What we call energy of power in the radiation of God is only pressure created or exacted by the Power that resides eternally in God. It is this power that propels the radiation into motion.

Actually we err when we talk about power and life outside of God. These are intricate qualities of God which remain with God and which creates the pressure that propels everything outside of God. True life is Power and Power is life. These two are one and cannot be dependent. Our lives and the lives of all creatures(from Divine to gross matter) are dependent on God and hence in reality not life, but a consequence of the life and Power of God.

The Words of the son of God, “I am the way, the Truth and the LIFE” is terribly deep when one considers it in the light of my explanation.

Consider that with God there is nothing finite. The Power, Light and Truth that is God is infinite. He is far beyond finiteness that He doesn’t even have a form. Hence the Grail Message refers to Him as Divinity unsubstantiate! Consider all types of substances imply a certain form, and all types of forms imply a certain finiteness. But God is completely infinite, hence unsubstantiate, without form; but His radiation, or the pressure that His Power creates is substantial. There is no way any substantial thing which already implies finiteness can carry a particle of that which is infinite and unsubstantiate. So in reality there only two things: God and His radiation. These two things cannot intermingle. The radiations flourish and thrive when left unhindered in the straight line motion that the pressure from the Power of God drives then. This straight line motion is the Will of God; hence the radiations follow the Will of God, propelled by the pressure of his power. That’s why we see a reflection of the qualities of God—Love, Justice, Purity, and etc.—in the radiations. Like I said to you in another thread long time ago, the whole of creation swing in the rhythm of God’s Love and Justice. All the radiations of God(from Divine substantiate to gross matter) swing in this pressure created by the power of God, and the rhythm of this pressure is Love and Justice. The closer a specie of God’s radiation is to the source of this pressure, the finer, purer, and more powerfully it swings in this rhythm or God’s will. This pressure permeates the entire creation, and even above creation; from Divine substantiate to coarsest gross matter. This is why the qualities of God(Love, justice, purity and etc.) are evidenced within His radiations.

This does not mean that these radiations carry elements or particles of God in any way. There is no Life and Power in the radiations; there is only one Life and Power and that is God.

Deep Sight:

The analogy of the sun failed because we could see that the sun contains some of the elements that it emanates.

The analogy was meant to convey an idea; and I think it did that very well. No analogy can truly and completely convey that which far above us—the relationship between God and His radiation.

Thanks.

justcool:


Dear Deep sight. In reality there is nothing like the source of electricity,

That is why i said it is not a good example. Because God is not a mere conductor of energy but the energy itself. Thus indeed when you say that electricity is a movement of electrons or charges, that is sure both present in the conductor as well as in the field around a high-tension conductor for example. So that actually helps the case that I make.

In magnetism, you are aware also that bodies can be magnetized and demagnetized. Does this not infer something? Is it truly correct to say that the charges that align around a magnet contain no element of charges aligning within the magnet? I am not a scientist or physicist, but I am not sure you can say that in all exactness. The gong example does not seem to tally up with the God example at all, and I cannot understand its relevance.

Anyhow, I do get your general point, and I hope that I will have better illumination in future.

m_nwankwo:

How exactly are super energy photons the same as low energy photons? Stay blessed

Because it is actually the very same super energy photons that are converted to lower energy photons before being emitted. But the same photons nonetheless. Thus it shows us that within the totality of what the sun emitts, there are photons that come from within the sun. This is why I believe the sun analogy fails.

That notwithstanding, i understand your general point, although I don't know if i agree with it.

Deep Sight:

That is why i said it is not a good example. Because God is not a conductor of energy but the energy itself. In magnetism, you are aware also that bodies can be magnetized and demagnetized. Does this not infer something? Is it truly correct to say that the charges that align around a magnet contain no element of charges aligning within the magnet? I am not a scientist or physicist, but I am not sure you can say that in all exactness. The gong example does not seem to tally up with the God example at all, and I cannot understand its relevance.

Anyhow, I do get your general point, and I hope that I will have better illumination in future.

The fact that the bodies can be magnetized and demagnetized does not mean anything to the analogy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; so any example that I give cannot imply the source of energy of the creation of energy. The purpose of an analogy is to convey an idea; the analogy can never conform to every aspect of that which it conveys.

Fluxes are not charges that alien around a magnet. Even if they are, do the fluxes contain any element of the magnetized iron? The gong analogy applies. The bottom line is that the sound that emanates from the gong caries neither an element of the gong or the energy applied to the gong.

Whenever anything is energized, something emanates. The emanation can be sound, heat and etc. and they don’t always contain an element of the energized object. Your fan hums, and creates pressure in the air thereby forcing the air to move. Does this pressure contain an element of your fan? Your car makes sound (hums) when you turn it on; does this humming sound emanating from your car contain elements of your car. Your body radiates heat; does this heat contain particles of your body?

Thanks

^ I do appreciate your point.

If I may reflect on this Sun-Sunbeam analogy that has been presented by adherents of the Grail Message to explain the nature of God, I’ll have to say that I am not convinced that the sunbeams or the sunrays are essentially different from the sun. There is no sensible way to talk of the sun (crudely put, a hot burning radiating ball of fire) existing without its sunbeams or rays. I contend that the sun’s rays have always existed together with the sun. In other words, there was never a time a pre-existing sun suddenly decided (as it were) to produce emanations.

When the star called the sun was born, that same instant did it begin to radiate away its beams. The nature of the sun is such that it produces emanations; it is incandescent. The sunbeam essentially flows out of the sun containing the very essence of the sun. To put it differently:  it would be a strange star, indeed a star not worthy of its name, if it could be demonstrated that the Sun did not have its rays or beams co-existing with it at all times. If we then cannot properly speak of the sun without the sunbeams, I think the analogy that portrays God as the Sun and Creation as the Sun’s beams (sun’s radiations or emanations) is altogether faulty.

2) I also have a philosophical disagreement with any view that essentially reduces God to energy. The word energy has a rich physical meaning which can be brought to bear in these discussions as they provide an illustrative framework upon which to anchor concepts. God is not to be conceived of as merely some inanimate, unconscious, driving force or energy or motivating principle. He is not to be thought of as some primordial energy that somehow dissipates into Creation. To be fair, the human language can prove to be inadequate to convey our deeper thoughts on the subject, nonetheless we should really try and simplify our definitions as much as we can, taking care not to conflate ideas. The view of God as “primordial energy”, or “primordial light” or “primordial time” may sound very poetic and numinous but they are altogether mistaken in that these qualifiers essentially depersonalize or de-animate God. The only way to redeem this view or to imbue it with any merit is to say that these descriptors are to be regarded as God’s attribute in some poetic or metaphorical manner of speech. Ontologically speaking, these descriptors fail hopelessly in establishing the nature of the being we are talking about because on that view God is some nebulous inanimate or non-sentient entity.

3) God is first and properly speaking, a mind or a sentient (conscious) being. You can also call him the Primordial Consciousness or Primordial Life. He is personal—which is to say that he has self-will, free will, rationality, and consciousness.  I must point out rather quickly that when I say that God is personal, you shouldn’t take that to mean that he is a human being or a human person. Personhood is not limited to Homo sapiens or for that matter, any other physically instantiated particulars. Philosophically speaking, personhood involves a self-conscious and rational being, or a unit of self-consciousness; and thus the concept of personhood cannot be straitjacketed and appropriated solely to evince some naturalistic presuppositions. Once you have established this, you can then go ahead to speak of other divine attributes that he properly possesses. Some of these attributes are that God is metaphysically or logically necessary, immaterial or incorporeal, eternal, non-spatial, immortal, all-knowing or omniscient, morally perfect, omnipresent or ubiquitous, and maximally powerful. So please let us stop borrowing excessively from the rich language of physics here in analogizing God to some Primordial force, energy, pressure, light, magnetism, singularity, electricity, gravity, momentum, or other quaint physical phenomena that strike our fancy. In my opinion these analogies to physical phenomena can be altogether counterproductive and belittling.

4) God’s infinite attributes are qualitative rather than quantitative. I find that often when people talk about divine infinity, they picture a God that has parts or components, and/or is spatially extended. Thus, they imagine that while speaking of God’s infinity, you are talking about some mathematical concept of infinity. For example, the set of all numbers (if you successively count upwards from 1) is infinite. God is not said to be infinite in that quantitative sense. He is not proposed to be made up of an infinite array of discrete or finite particulars; his infinite power is not to be understood as saying that he possesses an infinite amount of quantized energy; his omnipresence is not to be understood as saying that God literally physically occupies every inch of space-time. Infinity as it applies to God is merely qualitative as it seeks to express the total, undifferentiated and maximal nature of God. Indeed, as some have already pointed out, one can readily see vestiges of God’s superlative or infinite divine attributes in human beings and in the created order.

@deepsight

These two videos shows what I was trying to explain with my charged wire and transformer analogy.
When current passes through a wire, a field is generated around the wire, or emanates around the wire. This field caries neither an element of the wire nor an element of electricity or current in the wire. The field is actually magnetic; it is only the effect of the pressure created by the electric current in the wire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NeF7u_9_Sw&feature=related


In the case of a transformer we see two different closed systems not making contact with each other. Only the primary coil is connected to power, thus powered or energized. But the field around this energized system is enough to induce current to flow in the second system or secondary coil. The funny thing is that the energy spent on the secondary coil does not effect or reduce the power connected to the primary coil. If the power connected to the primary coil would last only two days; it will still last two days whather there is a secondary coil or not. Even if you connect a lot of load on the secondary coil it doesn't reduce or effect the power on the primary coil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Ijjm7if5g&feature=related

The point that I was trying to make is that the power in the primary coil remains in it and does not really flow into the secondary; but the pressure it creates, the magnetic field around it causes current to flow in the secondary coil. This is a very coarse analogy about the relationship between God and His creation or radiations. The power in God remains in God, it is inexhaustible and remains in God; but the pressure it creates cause the movement which we call energy or which we erroneously call power in creation. Eventhough this movement that we call energy in creation is dependant on God's power, it cannever exhaust or depreciate the Power that is in God. Just as the power consumed in the secondary coil does not depreciate the power in the primary coil. Electricity in the secondary coil originates in the secondary coil, although pr opeled by the magnetic filed of the primary coil. You cannot trace the current in the secondary back to the primary coil or say that they carry elements of the primary coil. By the same token, creatures in creation originate from the radiation of God, although this radiation is propelled by the power that is God; you cannot trace these creatures back to God or say that they carry elements of God. In this analogy, the powered primary coil represents God while the loaded secondary coil represents His is creation. Observe in the video, how the load(the electric bulb) on the secondary coil gets brighter just by moving the secondary coil closer to the primary coil. The same way specis of creation that are closer to God are brighter and more energized than those further away.

Keep in mind like I said earlier that these are just coarse analogies to convey an idea; notthing physical can truly and exactly replicate the relationship between God and His creation.

I believe God stands apart from His creation; just as an artist stands beside his work, or just as the two coils in a transformaer stand next to each other, not touching.

I don't know if you see the relevance of this in the discussion at hand. Forgive me, as an electrical engineer, I tend to see everything in the light of electricity.

Thanks.

1Godfather:

If I may reflect on this Sun-Sunbeam analogy that has been presented by adherents of the Grail Message to explain the nature of God, I’ll have to say that I am not convinced that the sunbeams or the sunrays are essentially different from the sun. There is no sensible way to talk of the sun (crudely put, a hot burning radiating ball of fire) existing without its sunbeams or rays. I contend that the sun’s rays have always existed together with the sun. In other words, there was never a time a pre-existing sun suddenly decided (as it were) to produce emanations.

When the star called the sun was born, that same instant did it begin to radiate away its beams. The nature of the sun is such that it produces emanations; it is incandescent. The sunbeam essentially flows out of the sun containing the very essence of the sun. To put it differently:  it would be a strange star, indeed a star not worthy of its name, if it could be demonstrated that the Sun did not have its rays or beams co-existing with it at all times. If we then cannot properly speak of the sun without the sunbeams, I think the analogy that portrays God as the Sun and Creation as the Sun’s beams (sun’s radiations or emanations) is altogether faulty.

2) I also have a philosophical disagreement with any view that essentially reduces God to energy. The word energy has a rich physical meaning which can be brought to bear in these discussions as they provide an illustrative framework upon which to anchor concepts. God is not to be conceived of as merely some inanimate, unconscious, driving force or energy or motivating principle. He is not to be thought of as some primordial energy that somehow dissipates into Creation. To be fair, the human language can prove to be inadequate to convey our deeper thoughts on the subject, nonetheless we should really try and simplify our definitions as much as we can, taking care not to conflate ideas. The view of God as “primordial energy”, or “primordial light” or “primordial time” may sound very poetic and numinous but they are altogether mistaken in that these qualifiers essentially depersonalize or de-animate God. The only way to redeem this view or to imbue it with any merit is to say that these descriptors are to be regarded as God’s attribute in some poetic or metaphorical manner of speech. Ontologically speaking, these descriptors fail hopelessly in establishing the nature of the being we are talking about because on that view God is some nebulous inanimate or non-sentient entity.

3) God is first and properly speaking, a mind or a sentient (conscious) being. You can also call him the Primordial Consciousness or Primordial Life. He is personal—which is to say that he has self-will, free will, rationality, and consciousness.  I must point out rather quickly that when I say that God is personal, you shouldn’t take that to mean that he is a human being or a human person. Personhood is not limited to Homo sapiens or for that matter, any other physically instantiated particulars. Philosophically speaking, personhood involves a self-conscious and rational being, or a unit of self-consciousness; and thus the concept of personhood cannot be straitjacketed and appropriated solely to evince some naturalistic presuppositions. Once you have established this, you can then go ahead to speak of other divine attributes that he properly possesses. Some of these attributes are that God is metaphysically or logically necessary, immaterial or incorporeal, eternal, non-spatial, immortal, all-knowing or omniscient, morally perfect, omnipresent or ubiquitous, and maximally powerful. So please let us stop borrowing excessively from the rich language of physics here in analogizing God to some Primordial force, energy, pressure, light, magnetism, singularity, electricity, gravity, momentum, or other quaint physical phenomena that strike our fancy. In my opinion these analogies to physical phenomena can be altogether counterproductive and belittling.

4) God’s infinite attributes are qualitative rather than quantitative. I find that often when people talk about divine infinity, they picture a God that has parts or components, and/or is spatially extended. Thus, they imagine that while speaking of God’s infinity, you are talking about some mathematical concept of infinity. For example, the set of all numbers (if you successively count upwards from 1) is infinite. God is not said to be infinite in that quantitative sense. He is not proposed to be made up of an infinite array of discrete or finite particulars; his infinite power is not to be understood as saying that he possesses an infinite amount of quantized energy; his omnipresence is not to be understood as saying that God literally physically occupies every inch of space-time. Infinity as it applies to God is merely qualitative as it seeks to express the total, undifferentiated and maximal nature of God. Indeed, as some have already pointed out, one can readily see vestiges of God’s superlative or infinite divine attributes in human beings and in the created order.

Hi 1Godfather. Thanks for your comments. I find it difficult to see what you disagree with in my descriptions. The issues that apparently you seem not to agree with are already addressed in my posts on this thread. The conclusions that you seem to draw from my description cannot be found in my descriptions. Take for instance your suggestion that my descriptions imply "God is some nebulous inanimate or non-sentient being". Reproduced below are some of my quotes on this thread.

God is the creator of all all existence. One can also say that God is the living source of all that is. God is the living source of all energies. Thus there is God and the emanations (radiations) of God. All that was, is and will ever be has its origin in the emanations of God. Thus, God brought and will continue to bring creations into existence from his radiations because the radiations of God contain all the primordial elements which either instantaneously or by development result in the in the birth of creations. Life, Infinity, Immutability, Love, Truth, Time, Perfection, Omniscience, etc, are living attributes that resides in God. It is for this reason that these aforementioned attributes are unattainable by the radiations of God (creations and creatures that inhabit them). The radiations of God although containing all the primordial elements have to be pressed into union so that what floats in infinity as oceans of flame can cool off, precipitate into seeds, germinates by cosmic explosions resulting in myriads of material and non-material universes. This pressing into union, cooling off, amalgamation into cosmic seeds and explosion of these seeds results from an act of Gods Will. Thus rightly understood, all creations are simply a direct or indirect consequence of the act of will of God. Without a conscious act of Gods will, there will be no creations.

Yes, creations can be described as an expression or the work of God but a work or an expression of God is not God. Yes, the radiations are the natural emanations from God but the radiations of God from which existence springs forth is not God.  Yes in the work of God, one will find reflections of the attributes that are in God. But these reflections like images are limited, the limitation imposed by the fact that they lack the unsubstantiated divine substance that is only in God. I oppose the view that God or a part of God is within his creations. What we find in all creations are simply radiations of God that have either taken form or are formless. An author is not the same as his books or inventions even though the mind of the author can be found in his books. Although it is a crude analogy, it faintly reflects the relationship between God and his creations. Even man is a coarse reproduction of the actual images or reflections of God.

God in my crude definition is the primordial Life or primordial Light or primordial Energy. Naturally, God who is the primordial Light radiates. The radiations are a natural consequence that God is. These divine emanations of God contain among others the breath of life that is the human spirit. Thus the direct origin of everything that is not the Almighty God is the radiations of God. You think that that since God is life, then everything that has life must have derived the life from the life that is in God. The divine emanations of God has life too but it is a reflection or a lower gradation of the living Life (GOD). The Life in the divine emanations of God contain all that is necessary for creation and creatures to emerge. God wills creation into existence by permitting his radiations to cool off, precipitate into cosmic seeds, explosion of these seeds and the subsequent emergence of subsequent creation. The primordial creation just came into existence once the almighty GOD willed it because the cool off from the divine emanations still retain enough "life" in them to form instantaneously. Now I do not think that it is difficult to imagine that there are various gradations of the life that is in the radiations of God. The human spirit is a radiation of God, so are animal souls and so are angels, etc, and yet these are different species or gradation of the radiation of God. But the radiation of God is not God and herein lies the point I am making. Every radiation of God even the divine radiations are substantiate, that is they have a form and and an image of them can be made. But God alone is unsubstantiate. It is not possible in my experiencing of creation to find the unsubstantiate essence that is God in substantiate beings. All substantiate beings have substantiate essence but never an unsubstantiate essence. Thus, the Almighty God, the primordial LIFE is not in man or any other substantiate beings even if they are divine beings. Thus, the quest to find God within man is a waste of spiritual energy. Man is not God, nor part of God. Part of the reasons for spiritual poverty is that many a man harbors the desire to be God or a part of God, thus he waste his energy trying to be what he can never be and then fail to be what he can be, a purified human spirit that consciously stands in the power of God

The analogy of the sun and its rays is a crude analogy meant to convey a concept of God, and the effect that God is. Just like sunbeams are a natural effect that the sun is, so are divine radiations a natural effect of God. The lesson in the analogy is that effect is not the same thing as the cause of the effect. If you imagine for instance the photosynthesis that results in several different species of plant are dependent on the sun rays. In an orange, a bunch of banana or a tuber of yam, you will not see elements in the sun rays in these food stuffs. The "energy" in the sun rays have been transformed to these different foodstuffs. To get a concept I am trying to convey in the crude analogy, then imagine God as the sun, the divine radiations as the sun rays and the various plant foods I have mentioned as different creations. In this analogy the sun beams have always existed with the sun because it is a direct natural effect of the sun but the various plant foods have not always existed with the sun and its rays because they are an after effect of the effect of the sun. Thus God and his divine radiations are eternal but the creations of God that arose when God willed some of his divine radiations to cool off and precipitate into various creations (both spiritual and material) are not abinitio eternal since they have a beginning. God can borrow or loan them "eternity" if the follow the will of God, the creator.


I have previously stated that reflections, effects, images, or vestiges of the divine radiations of God are found in creation and the human spirit is one of the innumerable beings that are these reflections. However these reflections or vestiges have no iota of the unsustantiate divine substance that is in God for the simple reason that infinity(God) cannot be found in what is finite (creations). Neither can that which is finite be found in what is infinite. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

The analogy of the sun and its rays is a crude analogy meant to convey a concept of God, and the effect that God is. Just like sunbeams are a natural effect that the sun is, so are divine radiations a natural effect of God. The lesson in the analogy is that effect is not the same thing as the cause of the effect. If you imagine for instance the photosynthesis that results in several different species of plant are dependent on the sun rays. In an orange, a bunch of banana or a tuber of yam, you will not see elements in the sun rays in these food stuffs. The "energy" in the sun rays have been transformed to these different foodstuffs. To get a concept I am trying to convey in the crude analogy, then imagine God as the sun, the divine radiations as the sun rays and the various plant foods I have mentioned as different creations. In this analogy the sun beams have always existed with the sun because it is a direct natural effect of the sun but the various plant foods have not always existed with the sun and its rays because they are an after effect of the effect of the sun. Thus God and his divine radiations are eternal but the creations of God that arose when God willed some of his divine radiations to cool off and precipitate into various creations (both spiritual and material) are not abinitio eternal since they have a beginning. God can borrow or loan them "eternity" if the follow the will of God, the creator.

I am just seeing this last response from you five months after. Excellent explanation. I think it delivers your point to perfection. However let us look at these divine radiations and the fact that they are co-eternal with God itself: does this mean that they eternally spawn creations (which will mean some sort of creations have eternally existed) or that the radiations only coalesce into creations if expressly willed by the mind of the creator?

Would such "express willing" be consistent with immutability of the creator?

I think I once discussed acts of intervention with you and justcool as being inconsistent with an adamantine and immutable God.

I have previously stated that reflections, effects, images, or vestiges of the divine radiations of God are found in creation and the human spirit is one of the innumerable beings that are these reflections. However these reflections or vestiges have no iota of the unsustantiate divine substance that is in God for the simple reason that infinity(God) cannot be found in what is finite (creations). Neither can that which is finite be found in what is infinite. Stay blessed.

Well put.