Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

Gearge, your opinion here is like that of St Teresa of Avila who said that God's hands are her hands etc. or words to that effect, if I remember right.

[Felix]

Hello Nichols, welcome to the forum. Some of your ideas are unclear to me...

"Imagine for a moment that god is not in the human figure, imagine a great mass of soul and consciousness."

You're saying that God is the "great mass of soul and consciousness," and each human soul is a droplet from that Divine ocean, is that correct? You said "soul and consciousness", is there a difference between the two or are they equivalent?

"When this physical being dies, its soul goes back to 'God'. In this way, you can be re-born, but you will never be the same Soul. In this way you will go to Heaven when you pass, you go back to be with God. And in this way you can go to Hell, for a tarnished or un-finished soul remains forever living as a Spirit, no longer physical, but not able to return to 'God'."

I see a few problems with your analogy: If the individual soul (thimble of water) returned to the Great soul (Divine ocean) after death, then it's individuality and any progress it made during it's earthly incarnation would be lost. That would be rather pointless, wouldn't it? Or do only "finished" souls get dissolved in the Divine ocean? (This would be similar to the Buddhist conception of attaining Nirvana.)

You said the souls that go to Hell are "unfinished." In what way? You also said they are "unable to return to God." Is that just temporary, until they graduate from finishing school?

Ediaan said: "The mental cannot express itself without using the correct "tool" or "machinery" (for want of a better word). He cannot not exist of His own accord because if He could..."

You've confused two different concepts: Expression (your first sentence) and Existence (your second statement). Existence may prefer to express itself but it doesn't need to, i.e., it's essence is not dependent upon it's form(s) of expression. In fact, that's one definition of soul: essence expressing as/through form.

[Ediaan]

Ediaan said: "The mental cannot express itself without using the correct "tool" or "machinery" (for want of a better word). He cannot not exist of His own accord because if He could..."

You've confused two different concepts: Expression (your first sentence) and Existence (your second statement). Existence may prefer to express itself but it doesn't need to, i.e., it's essence is not dependent upon it's form(s) of expression. In fact, that's one definition of soul: essence expressing as/through form.

Hi Felix. My statement was meant as follows "Expression" as in the communication of your beliefs or opinions. And "Existence" as in the state or fact of existing. Then "Soul" as the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.

[Tabura]

Well I like your idea it's like combining religions together...kinda. But Personally if i had to speak my mind about god mine would be a bit different and would combine a bit of our knowledge of science too. I am a nihilist at the moment but my latest altrough not up to date theory was god has no concience, he is made up from the smallest particles in existance and he is every particle currently in existance. That means god is everything from which I derived that god is nothing..but I got bored of thinking about stupid things like god and religion and whenever I argue about it now I argue with idiots who have yet to see that it's pointless to believe in "Him".

[ape]

Hi Tabura!

Some encouragement!

To conclude that God

.. is made up from the smallest particles in existance and he is every particle currently in existance. That means god is everything from which I derived that god is nothing..

is excellent because everything and nothing are complementary and composite!
See Niels Bohr.

So then, you also have to also conclude that it is as idiotic and as pointless and as pointed to disbelieve in God or to believe in no god as it is wise and as pointed and as

.. pointless to believe in "Him".

[Tabura]

Hi Tabura!

Some encouragement!

To conclude that God

.. is made up from the smallest particles in existance and he is every particle currently in existance. That means god is everything from which I derived that god is nothing..

is excellent because everything and nothing are complementary and composite!
See Niels Bohr.

So then, you also have to also conclude that it is as idiotic and as pointless and as pointed to disbelieve in God or to believe in no god as it is wise and as pointed and as

.. pointless to believe in "Him".

Hi again =) whew took me awhile to decrypt that... to many "point-s". contraria sunt complementa eh? true but I wouldn't want to start up the old opposites thing again -.- Let's just go with te Schrodinger's cat theory with that. Keep up the good work.

[James S Saint]

In this I use the word 'God' because the currently accepted meaning of 'God' is a good description for what I am discussing, except what I am discussing does not in any way influence people to my understand of this 'God' so far, and is not in reflection of human image.

Imagine for a moment that god is not in the human figure, imagine a great mass of soul and consciousness. No a visible mass, and not a mass that interacts with that which lies in the physical realm. We humans are physical, we are tangible objects, however the soul is intangible in every sense of the word. It is there but cannot be touched, licked, seen, etc... but we do feel it. What is a soul? I have come to my own theory.

Imaging a great mass of water, you can dip a cup inside this great mass of water, and it is now a cup of water. However you cannot pour that glass of water back into the mass, and get the same cup of water out ever again. It will always be different particles in the cup when you dip back in and get another cup. This is the way I believe the soul to work.

There is a Mass of Soul (like a ocean full of water it is not plural), when a life form comes into physical consciousness, it needs a soul. From this Mass of Soul (God) it draws its soul that it will carry with it for the remainder of its life. When this physical being dies, its soul goes back to 'God'. In this way, you can be re-born, but you will never be the same Soul. In this way you will go to Heaven when you pass, you go back to be with God. And in this way you can go to Hell, for a tarnished or un-finished soul remains forever living as a Spirit, no longer physical, but not able to return to 'God'.

I am still working on my Theory so any constructive thought would be much appreciated. I understand it is not very will written or explained, so I will continue to check in to answer any questions on the subject.

Okay now, how can you distinguish your view of God from "Truth itself" or the "Whole of Reality itself"?

[NicholsLLC]

Have you thought about why the soul would leave its place to inhabit a physical body only to return from where it came?

I can't speak for Nichols but my guess would be to grow/evolve, to try to become better than before so as to add something upon the return? Or maybe just for fun who knows.

I love your thought about growing and evolving, but also to experience life perhaps?

[NicholsLLC]

Hello Nichols, welcome to the forum. Some of your ideas are unclear to me...

"Imagine for a moment that god is not in the human figure, imagine a great mass of soul and consciousness."

You're saying that God is the "great mass of soul and consciousness," and each human soul is a droplet from that Divine ocean, is that correct? You said "soul and consciousness", is there a difference between the two or are they equivalent?

I think that there must be soul to have consciousness. Can there be consciousness in soul without life? I don't think that to be true.

"When this physical being dies, its soul goes back to 'God'. In this way, you can be re-born, but you will never be the same Soul. In this way you will go to Heaven when you pass, you go back to be with God. And in this way you can go to Hell, for a tarnished or un-finished soul remains forever living as a Spirit, no longer physical, but not able to return to 'God'."

I see a few problems with your analogy: If the individual soul (thimble of water) returned to the Great soul (Divine ocean) after death, then it's individuality and any progress it made during it's earthly incarnation would be lost. That would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

If you were soul, and wanted an opportunity to experience life, growth, tangibility, love non-eternal, wind, trees, and all things that we find to be beautiful here would you still believe that it was pointless to give up a piece of yourself if only to lose that individuality of that piece once that life has passed by? I don't think so. I don't see the pointlessness.

[rootseeker]

I believe the "mass of soul" you are describing is what most people would call an oversoul. A few people claim to have recollection of past lives. A few people also claim to have visited heaven or hell in near-death experiences. There are people who study such experiences, so you could possibly glean some information from them to forward your ideas. I can see how your model of the oversoul would lead to the identification of certain situations as being an eternal version of hell.

If the soul is an intangible construct it would still need a link to that which is tangible for existence. This could be the mind of God under a theory God has a tangible mind. If God has no tangible binding(s) to a physical realm that would not make much sense as to how God act in any way to influence that which is tangible.

All of our universe could be the imagination of God's mind making all of human existence intangible at the deeper level of existence, but God would then likely have some sort of brain. I think your theory should speculate a basis upon which to claim intangibility of the soul which would apply to "spirit" and other potentially fully intangible concepts.

[Stoppelmann]

In this I use the word 'God' because the currently accepted meaning of 'God' is a good description for what I am discussing, except what I am discussing does not in any way influence people to my understand of this 'God' so far, and is not in reflection of human image.

Imagine for a moment that god is not in the human figure, imagine a great mass of soul and consciousness. No a visible mass, and not a mass that interacts with that which lies in the physical realm. We humans are physical, we are tangible objects, however the soul is intangible in every sense of the word. It is there but cannot be touched, licked, seen, etc... but we do feel it. What is a soul? I have come to my own theory.

Imaging a great mass of water, you can dip a cup inside this great mass of water, and it is now a cup of water. However you cannot pour that glass of water back into the mass, and get the same cup of water out ever again. It will always be different particles in the cup when you dip back in and get another cup. This is the way I believe the soul to work.

There is a Mass of Soul (like a ocean full of water it is not plural), when a life form comes into physical consciousness, it needs a soul. From this Mass of Soul (God) it draws its soul that it will carry with it for the remainder of its life. When this physical being dies, its soul goes back to 'God'. In this way, you can be re-born, but you will never be the same Soul. In this way you will go to Heaven when you pass, you go back to be with God. And in this way you can go to Hell, for a tarnished or un-finished soul remains forever living as a Spirit, no longer physical, but not able to return to 'God'.

I am still working on my Theory so any constructive thought would be much appreciated. I understand it is not very will written or explained, so I will continue to check in to answer any questions on the subject.

Have you ever listened to or read Bernardo Kastrup, or any of the Advaida Vedanta teachers, or Rupert Spira?