Thinking of God

[MarcoALSilva]

God ... Ramblings ...

"Know that I am in you but you're not me"

Raul Seixas, by coining the phrase above, certainly sought to tack on a verse of the fundamental questions of man's musings. Nothing is more human than contemplate on divinity ...

The man, day by day, God created in His image and likeness.

Without any ceremony, in designing a series of divine attributes and adjectives ... But even somássemos everything everyone says about God from the beginning of writing until today, we would not only mere musings about that, so to speak, are the effects of an unknown cause strictly ...

For those attuned to the welfare aspects of the Work, God is the loving father who holds the children without depriving them of the evidence necessary to their rise ...

For those who shed mystical perceptions of themselves, God is ineffable, indescribable, unfathomable, invisible, unknowable ... So even throw pages and pages about all that God is not ...

For forming the side of those who see in evolution the great quest, there are an infinity of existential planes, all gravitating under the supreme control of a single ... God ...

Each of us may, at any given moment, assume this or that view about the Godhead, in most cases depending on the content of experiences at that moment ...

We are the inhabitants of Plato's cave, but already at the door, overshadowed by the same Light that warms, softens, comforts but confused ...

Many of us say that all is illusion ... Many ... However, interpretations vary exponentially from there ...

For some friends, everything (everything! Everything! Tudinho!) Is essentially an illusion ... Just left of goal o. .. nothing ...

So now we meditate that nothing is duality ...

That thing: if +1-1 = 0 +1-1 = 0 then ...

Thus, nothing is the perfect synthesis between thesis and antithesis ...

We can say that the only attribute of the deity is not exactly attribute any?

And the laws? The heterogeneity of the phenomena that science studies ... Newton, that great minds think jokingly made the light of God, described numerous inhomogeneities and translated into the language of divinity ... Wrote the Principia Mathematics ...

Mathematics is the most exact science because she herself knows exactly how inexact valuing it is ... Being accurate is knowing how inaccurate it is ...

Think about something is to conceive on their essence, or at least as far as we thought might achieve that essence ...

The attributes of divinity are all human. Logo may not be the essence of what is not human. Unless we believe that God is in the sense of Creator, as human as necessary for the human being could be created ...

So, the illusion of wondering about God can be the only truth possible, the communion of humanity with divinity, as it fits in the deity who created us ...

That is, we are always the same.

I only say that the only attribute I conceive immanent God is Life.

God exists only in our design because there is the Life ...

[Renato_]

Hello, Marcão!!

He even traveled eh! this is a topic of Theology.

Well, my knowledge of theology are well short of this vision of you that you pass, and which I feel very special.

I liked that part where you say you are the attributes of God, all human, after all, are we who ascribe to him those qualities is not it? You know I never stopped to think about it? And yet, what you said has a profound logic: Only Life and His immanence, and also the durability of it is that can bring us some attribute (íntimmo, or that arises from the mystical experience) of God.

(continue)

[Renato_]

[...]

Well, that said, let the "mathematics" as science "accurate."


The math is not "exact" in the sense that you assign to it. She's just a symbolic construction of reason, or symbolic reason, to "build" a graphical representation of what is intelligible and reality.


In fact, Galileo, Newton, Huygens and other mathematicians of the past, created a metaphor that, the math would be the "writing of God."


But modern mathematicians, from Henry Poincaré, and from modern epistemologists like Popper and others do not. After all, if we can measure the gravity between two bodies, not really know what to tell her origin, and its modus operandi. She is a quality from the Universal Cosmic Fluid, yet here, this thought is reminiscent of the natural philosophers -  Naturphisophie - of the seventeenth century.


Enstein came to say, that large massive bodies dilate the space-time, and with the discovery of the expanding universe by Edwin Powell Hubble, through the "Trail of galaxies, cosmologists and astrophysicists concluded that the cause of gravity is the distortion and expansion of space-time, which, in the manner of a ball that is thrown into a sheet stretched, and cause the other balls that are on the edge of the water are attracted to the ball higher, so too, would take place with the stars, so that the most massive attract the less massive.


But that's another conversation heheheee


us continue ...


Regards,