nothing is omnipresent

[_Z_]

nothing is omnipresent

omnipresence itself is a given, all things are present. that something is or has omnipresence contradicts this...

can we have something that is omnipresence other than omnipresence itself? in order to do so we must extrapolate ‘x’ presence from omnipresence ~ let us imagine a circle within which are all presences, to make a given thing have the quality of omnipresence we must take it outside of that circle, which is an impossible conclusion to draw.

the same applies to omnipotence; to have anything of any description that has potency over anything within our circle, we have to first take from within that. considering that all potencies are within the circle this to is impossible.
if were were to do so then we have two instances of ‘x’ being ‘x’, of presence or potency being itself when it already is itself.

fig 1


omniscience
to have all knowledge we must first be in a position where all knowledge is present. to arrive there time must have ended and no more events may ever occur, as each new event would represent a new item of knowledge.

the only exception to the rule is where all possible items of knowledge are understood in a predetermined fashion. for example we may understand something we don’t know by adding together other items of knowledge that we do know. this is only an estimation of the unknown knowledgeable item and can never be absolute knowledge of that even if the information provided by the deduction is correct.

an unknown item of knowledge must always have a ‘strange’ aspect, no two instances can be exactly the same, all things hold their own positions relative to one another and cannot occupy the same space.

infinite historical accuracy; the above would not be true if we were beyond time looking back upon the history of knowledgeable items. or if we were looking down - so to say, upon all-time and all events and hence all knowledge.

as we have discussed before; there is no exact knowledge, so there is never absolute knowledge of all things even if we could view existence from an extraneous/infinite perspective.

secondly there are hidden knowledgeable items, in our primary formula (fig 1) we note that P cannot = p, hence there cannot be a position of the onlooker which is outside of the omni-perspectile view. infinity would not be outside of the circle and no observation from point x may observe itself nor other obscured entities.

note. nothing is also within the circle, there can be nothing outside of it. then that there is nothing between all things within the circle and hence all ‘p’s are connected as there is nothing to separate them except self imposed definitions and limits.

ominpresence, omnipotency and omniscience may thence only be qualities unto themselves. they dont exist as anything other than a description of things.

[Dawud]

We are finite beings and can't comprehend the infinite. We can't comprehend the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator. But neither can a cat comprehend the mind of a human being, nor a flower comprehend the mind of a cat.

[_Z_]

dawud

We are finite beings and can’t comprehend the infinite.

meaning 1) infinity is incomparative. 2) has no limits. 3) is not a thing. 4) does not exist in xyz dimensions.

We can’t comprehend the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator.

so people keep telling me. i did not mention god in the opening post, it is a philosophical concept and a truth unto itself. it simply states that you cannot have a possessor of all presences, god may be omnipresent as like a philosophical space, but by this formula he cannot be all presences as they are themselves.

a cat doesn’t have a human mind which is as advanced as can possibly be built, if you made a brain bigger it would only slow it down. the human mind is capable of understanding anything.

[Dawud]

Originally Posted by _Z_

the human mind is capable of understanding anything.

...said a human mind.

Let's agree to disagree. I can't comprehend everything. For instance, I can't comprehend not having a beginning because I myself had a beginning.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dawud

...said a human mind.

Let's agree to disagree. I can't comprehend everything. For instance, I can't comprehend not having a beginning because I myself had a beginning.

What was that beginning? Birth?, conception? your ancestors birth/conception? The transformation of the atoms in your body billions of years ago into heavy elements like carbon and iron? Your real beginning is as unknowable as the exact composition of elements in a square inch of rock 5 miles deep in Pluto. So how do you know you had a beginning?

tao

[greymare]

I cant comprehend that one day, i wont be here. Ive always been here. As long as I can remember, anyway.

[Dawud]

Originally Posted by greymare

I cant comprehend that one day, i wont be here. Ive always been here. As long as I can remember, anyway.

I agree with that... I totally comprehend "no ending." We will go on and on and on. Makes perfect sense to me. The soul, that is. The body, of course, will go back to the earth.

Tao, it's true that what makes up my body goes back a long way... but I don't remember anything before about one year old. I believe there is no beginning, I believe that God has no beginning, but I can't get my mind around it. I can't comprehend no beginning. It's too big for my mind.

[_Z_]

i don’t know what this has to do with the meaning of the thread but; as for beginnings, we need an exact point of origin and as everything comes from something else, there are none. a beginning defines an absolute limit where there are none.

in a spiritual context the inferred meaning that ‘nothing’ is omnipresent would suggest to me only a philosophical space may occupy all areas without being doubly present in all properties. the spirit may be thought of as that space, then that it may make utility of all properties within the eternal circle [as fig 1].

the above formula then does not deny eternity nor spirit, it just provides us with a more elegant explanation - if i may.

[Vajradhara]

spacetime is omnispresent, at least in this universe

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

no we cannot say space-time 'is' omnipresent, we may say; space-time is inside the circle, omnipresence has space-time they are part of each other, just different descriptions and perspectives of the same thing. it is not something that has it, it is it.

all p’s are p, both omnipresence and space-time are p [properties, qualities etc].

we could say god/brahma [whatever] is the same but then we would be giving it properties or saying that it is this or that ~ if anyone cares to say what god is then we can put it within the circle. however it cannot be something outside of it but which possesses it.

besides i think emptiness [which can be omnipresent {the space inside the circle}] is a far better description that god or gods eh!

[Dawud]

There is a story about someone at the beach with a cup. He keeps dipping the cup in the ocean and someone comes along and asks him what he's doing. He says he's trying to put the ocean into the cup. I forgot the rest of the story, but it's like trying to comprehend omnipresence in a human mind.

[Ciel]

Z
In the fusion of negative-positive force of consciousness one becomes one's own eternal omnipotent moment............

Omnipresent is the same formula in God space

- c -

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

no we cannot say space-time 'is' omnipresent, we may say; space-time is inside the circle, omnipresence has space-time they are part of each other, just different descriptions and perspectives of the same thing. it is not something that has it, it is it.

sure we can since spacetime exists throughout the entire universe.

i, personally, find Super String theory to be very compelling and so there may well be universes wherein spacetime is not omnipresent but within this one it is as Einstein so elegantly demonstrated with the crown jewel of pre quantum physics; General Relativity.

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

ciel, hi

In the fusion of negative-positive force of consciousness one becomes one’s own eternal omnipotent moment............
Omnipresent is the same formula in God space

i would see consciousness then negative force or any other as an expression of that. interesting second point, to me it means; are all presences universal and hence omnipresent! that would break the rule in an almost infinite manner lols. could be true if we were to say that the essences within presence = 0, then there are no limits with which to tie the formula to, but that would be a shared space rather than omnipresence.


i rather like this idea as then nothing has dominion ~ which is why i worked towards the idea of the op. it makes god not a matrix nor a dictator of any kind and ego as an illusion where we are all 0 with the same qualities etc. god = the creator of freedom?

vaj hi

sure we can since spacetime exists throughout the entire universe.

it doesn’t exist ‘as’ every instance of a thing, it is more like a space within which things dwell, than something that is all of those things.
let us put it more simply and personal...
there are not two presences in you or me, nor two observers, nor an omni-observer ~ which is what an omnipresent deity would be if it could observe, which of course it could if it were all of our presences.

thank you

[Vajradhara]

namaste Z,

do you mean the term "omnipresent" to mean "phenomena which arise in the ontological universe" or do you mean "a noumena or phenomena which exists throughout the universe simultaneously"?

metta,

~v