What you actually mean is, I don't see your idea of God.
You see, your inability to respond without abuse says a lot.
Personally, I think you're inability to respond with anything other than jeers and insults just shows you've got lots of abuse, but no substance.
Here we go, no substance, the usual infantile conspiracy theories, and the usual tirade of abuse ...
Really?Have you never come across the 2nd century theosophies grouped under the banner of 'gnosticism'? I'm surprised, you've endorsed them often enough.
That's because I don't buy into your materialistc notions of esoterism.
Abuse. who are you trying to impress, exactly?
Ah. Look out Radarmark, you're being courted, old chum.
... abuse ...
That's you, Mr R.
Well I would say that the data of Divine Revelation outstrips the writings of even Philip K Dick. This is actually a pre-Christian notion — we're back to the idea of man as the plaything of the gods, and the Cult of Persephone.
I'm afraid I think that's cart-before-the-horse logic. It assumes God is just the exemplar of what man can be.
Not really. God is not a thing like other things are ... God is not DNA.
Nope, there can't be a paradox in God.
These might prove enlightening with regard to the Christian perspective:
Should I ask for a proof of this divine reality? Bible? Oh, no. Faith. Is that right?
Mountain moved away! Which one?
All these are not real? There are angels? Michael, Gabriel? And the children of God's angels and daughters of humans, the Nephelims.
I am not talking of any 'relative absolute'. I will go with science. There is nothing in this world which is not 'physical energy'. Energy is expressed as mass also. The universe and all things contained in it are constituted by 'physical energy'. Then there is, as you said, the multiplicity. That is what we perceive, and sometimes forget that it is none other than 'physical energy'. So my two realities, I meant these two. The 'absolute' having 'physical energy' and the 'pragmatic' or 'perceived' which is only a form of the absolute. This is what makes us to run away from a charging bull. At the level of 'absolute' reality, there is no bull, no person, and no running away. I am sure you understand my point though my presentation may not have been very smooth.
Well you can try, but as the Divine is beyond all empirical determination, you'd be wasting your time.
Which science? Physics or Philosophy?
Ah, physics then. Once again, you're in the wrong place: Religion/Faith/Theology :: Belief and Spirituality — discussions here 'transcend' the material and the arguments of scientism.
We're not talking about materialism at all. Or at least, I'm not.
I understand. We were talking about the spiritual - different order of thing altogether.
Physics is science. Philosophy is speculation.
What is material and what is not? Are energy and material two different entities? Why should one have this faith and not the other. We want to judge it from all angles, with all the knowledge with us. Why would that be wrong?
What is a spirit?
Oh my, Thomas. You have had no interaction with the Divine? None at all?
Which perhaps could be consistent if you don't go around telling people that their philosophy is NOT the scientific method, demanding some empirical evidence from them, as if when you are ever convinced, then it is a proof.
Don't knock it!
Physics is the child of philosophy. Physics starts from speculation ... and philosophy is a science. They both operate according to their axioms.No, they're both matter, in the wider sense of the term, or matter is energy, viewed under certain conditions ...
Why cannot one have both? I do.
It's not. I was under the impression you were limiting the field to the purely empirical.
What is matter
...