₦airaland Forum

Ditto with any major festival in any part of the world and in every culture

There are se[b]x[/b]ual practices that can actually be very very physically harmful and even constitute assault and battery. Such as Bondage, Domination, Sado Masochism. Why is no one criminalizing these?

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

And if that is criminalized, just how many se[b]x[/b]ual perversions will we go on to criminalize?

This is misdirected energy.

It would have been apt to simply deny legal recognition to same s.ex unions, but the extra step of criminalizing same s.ex activitivies is certainly wholly unconstitional in many respects and should be challenged in the courts. I have a sneaky feeling though, that the US and Britain may prevail on the President to withhold his assent.

Whilst i agree that the law over reaches fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom from discrimination and freedom of association, i cannot accept that western powers are in any position to lecture a sovereign nation on this matter: for bigamy ought not be criminal within their own systems in the same respect.

There are many se.xua.l perversions and it would be absurd to begin to prescribe jail terms for each one. That is frankly on all fours with medieval persecutory barbarism.

Goodness me.

^ I do appreciate your point.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=818040.msg9737943#msg9737943 date=1323547180]How exactly are super energy photons the same as low energy photons? Stay blessed[/quote]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.

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.

Joagbaje can you please comment on this. I seem to recall that last year Christ Embassy did something similar for their New Year Service. It was N1000 per head. What can justify such please.

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.

M_Nwankwo, Justcool, My Joe

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.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=818040.msg9718085#msg9718085 date=1323301268]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.[/quote]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.

*sigh*

^ Dyu get a high from this

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.

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.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=818040.msg9713316#msg9713316 date=1323259968]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.[/quote]^ 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 . . . .  .?

Where are you, PLaetton?

And I just cannot get over the claim that Hindu gods are "certainly not" said to be eternal. 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

Idehn:
If you would actually proffer a definition of God that followed those criterion I would not have to repeat myself.

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 are. There is no person who can expect to be viewed as being seriously ready for a worthwhile discussion if the above misses him. Because i very specifically wrote - "God - as used in Atheistic/ Theistic discussions." I wrote this twice and even bolded it.

Can you sincerely claim that the idea of God as advanced in these discussions is unknown to you? Can you sincerely claim that the central idea of God as used in these discussions does not refer to an eternal being who is the source of all that exists?

And can you further claim, that this fundamental precept is not common to the conceptions of God of most religions - barring only very few indeed?

If you will not be honest on these transparent questions, then obviously there is no point in indulging your definition games. I do not post on this forum for the purpose of indulging such games.

You cannot honestly believe that most human beings have the same basic notion of what God is.

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.

On nairaland alone, I have read people arguing that God exist outside time and space, which would preclude any notion of being eternal.

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.

Furthermore, the hindu pantheon and shinto patheon the "Gods" are most certainly are not eternal.

Obviously, for hindusim, you never heard of Brahman.

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.

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.

Just present it. Also you may want to look up what nebulous means before you use it again.

I don't see your confusion, unless you have no grasp of definition, liscence, context and usage. Your points are indeed vague, tenuous, hazy, and virtually meaningless - you are not saying anything clear, in light of the fact that "God" as used in these discussions is quite clear indeed. Your claim to the contrary is thus neither here nor there and quite confusing.

But at least you have something. What is always unclear/nebulous, is what an eternal mind entails. You may as well have said an eternal car engine. Is god made a special form of matter/energy? Does this matter not undergo entropy. If you are stating that God is a physical entity that has/can interact with the physical universe the least you could do is give a more concise physical definition.

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.

Along those lines What is always unclear/nebulous is what being the origin of the universe entails. The conservation laws of matter/energy are the closest physical analogy for being eternal we have. Energy is always conserved. If you start with energy you must end with energy. If the Universe is composed of energy then it would be consistent to say the Universe has always existed in some form.

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.

Are you saying God is the origin of just structure of the Universe, or also the the substance there within.

God is the origin of all that exists. Period. That is what I am saying. It's not hard, and I do not force it on you to accept. All I ask is that you are honest enough to admit that there is an idea of what God is said to be - instead of repeated definition games.

Okay, let's not derail indeed.

Plaetton - come over here to follow up -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-818922.0.html

Your posts disclose you as a breed of pantheist, and not atheist.

Agree?

I really hope we do not need to have a potential armageedon in the form of a doomsday meteor or comet before people are able to see the far-sighted and deep value in this research.

One day, humanity may find it necessary to relocate from the earth or expand onto other planets. There could be many causes of this. Aside from potentially cataclysmic cosmic events, such could become necessary in the far future on account of over-population, scarcity of resources, climate change, and many other conceivable scenarios.

plaetton:
If we can agree that god, no matter how much we believe in it or how we define it, is just a notion, an idea, a hypothesis. Matter on the other hand, is self-evident. We can observe, measure and analyse matter. Its kind of funny to state with conviction, that something that is self-evident could only be created by something that is not self-evident.
Physical matter has embeded within it , many qualities and properties that we are yet discover and understand, which may include the very superlative qualities we ascribe to god.

Matter could not be eternal in the past because it lacks the qualities of self-existence. Self-existent things are intrinsincally intangible things. Further, self - existent things are also immutable, whereas matter is subject to change. For these reasons, a keen student of these precepts should understand that matter is not, and could never have been, self-existent.

plaetton:
Matter may just be a the total sum of one singularity(god) and not a creation of that singularity(god).

Friend, you are a panthiest.

Idehn:
@OP
I have a criticism with this debate, that are true with most debates about "God". It is that no one has even offered a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition of what God IS that the debaters agree on. The debate just started with everyone assuming they knew what everyone else meant when they say God. What is the point of debating God, if we do not even know what it IS we are even talking about. Otherwise we may as well be saying Goasdmidm(a word I made up) is omnipotent(a very nebulous word) and eternal. We essentially know just as much about the word Goasdmidm as the word God. Which is to say nothing at all.

That is the key difference between talking about God and talking about matter. It is fairly easy to find such a definition. People usually turn to the realm of science to obtain said definition. God on the other hand has widely differing definitions and most I have seen are either unclear, incoherent, meaningless(or some combination) or dare I say non-existent . So I suggest first clearing up the ontological aspect of the debate first and foremost. I am not aware of deepsight ever giving a clear, coherent, and meaningful definition of what God but I could be wrong.

I am sorry to say, but my view is that it is quite useless wasting everyone's time (repeatedly) with the same contribution - I observe that this is the self-same and exact comment you make in each of these discussions - and 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.

Even where the ideas contain disparate components, the fundamental components or precepts remain standard and univcersal - namely an eternal being or mind said to be the origin of all existence and creation. This basic property of the term "God" is so virtually universal to all precepts of the word "God" as used within Atheistic/Theistic discussions, that it becomes tiresome, nebulous and almost escapist for anyone to claim that the idea of what God is being discussed is not clear.

I am sorry, but i see such a contention as an idle postulation which does nothing to help serious minded philosophical discussion. You cannot claim that there is any confusion as to whether figures such as Santa Claus are being discussed here. Even the religious "Gods" all share the basic precept of being a reference to the eternal and fundamental being that is the root of all existence. We should deal with that basic precept instead of shadow-boxing with idle diversions.

plaetton:
Most athiests deny spirituality simply because the word "spirituality" usually implies subjective notions, experiences mixed with old fables, superstitions etc. Things that , by their very nature, cannot stand up to any kind of objective scrutiny.
For me, being spiritual means that I have the awareness that all matter are interconnected . All are parts of one singualrity expressing itself through different frequencies of motion. As an athiest, I do not believe that a conscious being stands apart from existence, rather, I see just one consciousness that permeates all that exists. My argument has always been that the unverse, as we understand it today, may not have needed a conscious being ,standing aside from it ,to create it. That is probably where we differ.
We now know that matter exists in many more states than the solid, liguid and gaseous states that we were taught in school. The existence of realities beyond the realms of our physical perceptions is now generally accepted.
Back earlier when I wrote about the mono-atomic states of heavy metals such as iridium, paladium, gold etc, I forgot to mention that ,also during the experiments on these substances, it was reported that at certain conditions, 14% of the substance disappeared in a flash of light and was never recovered. It did not burn, it simply changed into light.This means that at one point, this mass was convered into pure white light. My understanding from that is that matter has a light or ethereal component. Matter and energy are interconvertible, so same would also apply to body and spirit.

If our brain is a super-conductor that is just operating at its minimum capacity, it means ,like I suggested previously, that we, though confined to a three-dimensional reality, are multi-dimensional beings capable of making quantum leaps into other dimensions of existence. That for me, is the spiritual component of man. I am in full agreement with pastor A0I that our brain confines us to a 3 dimensional reality and defines the boundaries. That is why mind-altering drugs alter reality.

Fantastic.

Nevertheless, this, you must perforce accede - does not qualify as atheism - for the simple reason that Theism is not constricted to the idea of a being standing aside from creation/ existence. There are many schools of theism that see the the worlds themselves as part and parcel - indeed - the same as and identical to the ONE being that is - which is gravely similar to what you describe.

Here, an example -

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

There is no official universal symbol for all types of Pantheism, but one icon is used by the World Pantheist Movement (WPM): the spiral as seen in the curves of the nautilus shell, or in the spiral arms of a galaxy, showing the link between the cosmic physical and the biological. The spiral represents a variety of things: it means evolution, eternity, spirituality, growth.[3] Sometimes the Nautilus spiral alone is used; it embodies the Fibonacci series and the golden ratio.[4]In Pantheism, God is identical with the universe, but in Panentheism God lies within and also beyond or outside of the universe.[5]

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

I would dearly love to hear justcool's take on the substances that flash into light. Justcool, the master of analogy, where art thou?

Congratulations!

^ A very strange idea indeed, i must say. . . . the only logical response to that being the refrain "We don't know" - which of course is agnostic and not atheistic.

Dafidi, how you dey? Bagged that Phd yet?

Thak you for your thought-provoking questions.

My view is that the encapsulation and unity of all intangible eternity is what is God itself. This is not nothingness - for in my perception nothingness strictly speaking is nothing: and as such does not exist at all.

If we could rightly perceive or picture eternity, infinite time and infinite space, and understand that such constitutes a unified reality, we could begin, in my view, to remotely conceive of what God is or means. It is that infinite reality which being an unchangeable  constant, is the compound and self-existent encapsulation of the eternal reality itself. That is what God is - and that is why it simply is - God is.

It is not nothing - for in its very still and one unity, it encompasses the limitless span of every infinite possibility that may exist - and is thus the core egg, which contains, perhaps i might say, the genes for everything else.

The unity of such an eternal reality is in my view, being the fount of reality, the most powerful force that is, or could exist. And that very unity - that oneness - is what i understand to be the oneness of God - and this is where i locate my apprehension of my monotheistic view. It might seem odd to say, but it is at the self-same time a coin that can be viewed in endless and infinite polytheistic views, given that we speak of infinity.

Now the oneness of eternity - which is God - in my view - by its very nature and oneness implies certain self-existent properties about it. Some of the most basic would be its constancy - which is the real meaning of truth itself, indeed, which is what truth is, its oneness - which is the real meaning of love - because the purest and ultimate love is in reality a reflection of the principle of oneness and its perfect balance - which is the real meaning of justice and harmony.

These things are thus, in their purest form, subsumed within the ONENESS itself, as self existent properties of the ONENESS - which is God. They are very real in their existence as properties of the ONENESS OF ETERNITY, which is what God is.

There are  also other properties which emanate naturally as consequenecs of that oneness. The laws of existence all emanate naturally as self-existent properties of the ONENESS. This is why the laws of existence are immutable and bespeak balance. This is also why I like to describe God as simply the compound of self-existent laws. That is what God encapsulates and is. And it is from this nature that the creations naturally spring forth in accordance with the properties of the ONENESS. And not from nothingness.

This is just my personal and humble view of God - and i realize it will be completely empty and meaningless especially to the hardened materialist.

Second question: does it balance out to consider oneself "highly spiritual" and simultaenously reject the notion of a spiritual source of all things?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-357796.0.html

Works. What's your take on the issue of bending spacetime a sdiscussed in the link i provided up there?