God's Eye

[Snaidis]

A wonderful natural phenomenon, this kind of event only happens every 3000 years.
This photo was taken with the Hubble telescope of NASA.
Some people believe that it's God's Eye.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6945/geyeqx8.png

What do you think?
:yup:

[Skiz]

My wish didn't come true. :dry:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Nope I don't think it's God's eye. However I don't think God has eye's per se, so that's not surprising.

[Something Else]

God's eye? Nah, it's just space n crap...

[Squeamous]

If by 'God' you mean the vacuum of space and by 'eye' you mean a gaseous maelstrom of matter then yes, that could very well be God's eye.

[Snaidis]

My wish didn't come true. :dry:
Try again, you just need to wait more 3000 years.

[manicgeek]

If his eyes are that small.... how the hell does he manage to be everywhere at the same time ?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Omnipresence doesn't rely on good eyesight.

[Something Else]

You would know, obvoiusment.....

[manicgeek]

Omnipresence doesn't rely on good eyesight.

Oooooo this should be good.... so what does it rely on ?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Omnipresence doesn't rely on good eyesight.

Oooooo this should be good.... so what does it rely on ?

Being omnipresent, I think that's pretty much self-evident.

If not actually being "Oooooooo .... good"

[Something Else]

Good point. I think that nails that pretty shut :lol:

[manicgeek]

Being omnipresent, I think that's pretty much self-evident.

If not actually being "Oooooooo .... good"

So what gods a fat bloke, is he ?

[Something Else]

So what gods a fat bloke......?

Buddha?

[manicgeek]

Extreme Buddha!

[Mr JP Fugley]

Being omnipresent, I think that's pretty much self-evident.

If not actually being "Oooooooo .... good"

So what gods a fat bloke, is he ?

No, what makes you think that.

[manicgeek]

No, what makes you think that.

How can he be present everywhere, if his eyes that small, and he's not fat ?

[blackbird]

So what gods a fat bloke......?

Buddha?

nah .. he was just a guitarist of the band nirvana

[kaffeine]

How can he be present everywhere, if his eyes that small, and he's not fat ?

because....

Omnipresence doesn't rely on good eyesight.

[thewizeard]

It's a cosmic squid's egg ..colour enhanced...

[Mr JP Fugley]

No, what makes you think that.

How can he be present everywhere, if his eyes that small, and he's not fat ?

The question makes no sense. Being omnipresent he couldn't possibly have a corporeal form.

Being omnipotent he could create one if he so wished, but that would not be omnipresent. He himself would remain omnipresent, the body however would inhabit a finite place within space and time.

Sorry but I think this is all pretty much self-evident stuff here

[blackbird]

but why is is god referred to as "he" ??

[Mr JP Fugley]

It would seem rude to refer to the deity as "it".

[Something Else]

and if ur nitpicking it should be God with a capital...

[Mr JP Fugley]

Normally if I was referring to Him I would use the capital "H"as well.

[manicgeek]

because....

Omnipresence doesn't rely on good eyesight.

Please try to keep up.

It would require a substantial amount of mass.. so if he's not fat and his eyes are that small how is he big enough to be everywhere at the same time ?

[blackbird]

It would seem rude to refer to the deity as "it".


why not "She ? :unsure:

[manicgeek]

The question makes no sense. Being omnipresent he couldn't possibly have a corporeal form.

Being omnipotent he could create one if he so wished, but that would not be omnipresent. He himself would remain omnipresent, the body however would inhabit a finite place within space and time.

Sorry but I think this is all pretty much self-evident stuff here

Ah! I see you think he just created an eye like ?

Maybe bored one afternoon and thought I know I'll knock up an eye... I wonder how big I should make it ?

[Mr JP Fugley]

The question makes no sense. Being omnipresent he couldn't possibly have a corporeal form.

Being omnipotent he could create one if he so wished, but that would not be omnipresent. He himself would remain omnipresent, the body however would inhabit a finite place within space and time.

Sorry but I think this is all pretty much self-evident stuff here

Ah! I see you think he just created an eye like ?

Maybe bored one afternoon and thought I know I'll knock up an eye... I wonder how big I should make it ?

No, didn't you read my first post.

[kaffeine]

because....


Please try to keep up.

It would require a substantial amount of mass.. so if he's not fat and his eyes are that small how is he big enough to be everywhere at the same time ?
It's been explained to you already, 2 times. quoted the first answer because you asked again.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I don't think he understand mate. He seems to think that omnipresent means actually being everything, as opposed to being everywhere.

[blackbird]

The question makes no sense. Being omnipresent he couldn't possibly have a corporeal form.

Being omnipotent he could create one if he so wished, but that would not be omnipresent. He himself would remain omnipresent, the body however would inhabit a finite place within space and time.

Sorry but I think this is all pretty much self-evident stuff here

Ah! I see you think he just created an eye like ?

Maybe bored one afternoon and thought I know I'll knock up an eye... I wonder how big I should make it ?

i was an atheist .. but when i think about the begining of the universe and stuffs like that .. i belive in god :mellow:

[Mr JP Fugley]

Ah! I see you think he just created an eye like ?

Maybe bored one afternoon and thought I know I'll knock up an eye... I wonder how big I should make it ?

i was an atheist .. but when i think about the begining of the universe and stuffs like that .. i belive in god :mellow:

What's interesting is that quantum physics tells us that by observing events we influence them and that the normal order of cause and effect is not a strict rule. We are now starting to observe the very beginings of the Universe so it's possible that we are also influencing it.

[kaffeine]

yep, and also, the composition of things and the way we perceive reality is not really how it is, it's only a representation of it being perceived by our limited senses. In fact, nobody knows how the reality really is, the only known fact is that it is NOT how we perceive it.

[Something Else]

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4138/orlymatrixpc8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Mr JP Fugley]

yep, and also, the composition of things and the way we perceive reality is not really how it is, it's only a representation of it being perceived by our limited senses.

That's more to do with the limitations of our senses than the fundamental nature of reality however it is a good point well made. How can we analyze properly if we can't observe properly.

[thewizeard]

It could be a galaxy called Cyclopes

[Mr JP Fugley]

It could be a galaxy called Cyclopes

I don't think there is one, is there.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think the closest to that is Cygnus A.

[Alien5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkmpIXd9Q90

[Mr JP Fugley]

There is one called "The Eyes" tho'.

[kaffeine]

That's more to do with the limitations of our senses than the fundamental nature of reality however it is a good point well made. How can we analyze properly if we can't observe properly.
The thing is that we can't know the fundamental nature of reality, even if we weren't limited by our senses we couldn't, because as you said, we modify it simply by observation (we would still look at a representation of it). Unless this modification comes as a direct result of our limitations in perception.

[Mr JP Fugley]

That's more to do with the limitations of our senses than the fundamental nature of reality however it is a good point well made. How can we analyze properly if we can't observe properly.
The thing is that we can't know the fundamental nature of reality, even if we weren't limited by our senses we couldn't, because as you said, we modify it simply by observation (we would still look at a representation of it). Unless this modification comes as a direct result of our limitations in perception.

Good point.

Thinking about it, is there one fundamental nature of reality or are there many depending on one's perspective. I don't mean different interpretations of the same reality. I mean actual different realities.

[Something Else]

Perhaps there aren't any realities as they are all just perceptions and nothing more...

[Mr JP Fugley]

Perhaps there aren't any realities as they are all just perceptions and nothing more...

Nah, that's just shite.

All matrixy, modern, namby-pamby, science-fantasy shite.

[Something Else]

balls, no it's not, if we all distort our perception to create our reality then without any perception there may be no reality, like the old 'tree falling the woods'...That's not modern you tart...

[Mr JP Fugley]

balls, no it's not, if we all distort our perception to create our reality then without any perception there may be no reality, like the old 'tree falling the woods'...That's not modern you tart...

That's not what I said but, I specifically said not different perceptions of the same reality. Different realities.

The tree falling in the wood thing is pish too. It does make a sound, it just doesn't matter.

[Something Else]

But the nature of consciousness affects the nature of reality, for us at least.....so we'll never know for sure....

[Mr JP Fugley]

But the nature of consciousness affects the nature of reality, for us at least.....so we'll never know for sure....

I would contend that the nature of consciousness affects our perception of reality, however it does not affect the reality itself.

[Something Else]

I'm listening to quite an interesting lecture on the subject now to refresh my perceptions.....Alan Watts....you know his stuff?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Never heard of him, who does he play for.

[Something Else]

rly never heard of him? He played for drink n women....

[Mr JP Fugley]

Now that is a job.

[Something Else]

yeh until you die from herpes and liver erosion...

[Mr JP Fugley]

yeh until you die from herpes and liver erosion...

Fuck off, I've not got herpes.

[Something Else]

:glag:

check out some alan watts on oinks, let me know what u think...

[Mr JP Fugley]

Don't want to appear obtuse here but I have no idea what an "oinks" is.

[Something Else]

never mind.....that's way too obtuse :dabs:

[kaffeine]

Good point.

Thinking about it, is there one fundamental nature of reality or are there many depending on one's perspective. I don't mean different interpretations of the same reality. I mean actual different realities.
I'm more inclined to the theory that each decision we make and action we take (even at subatomic levels) creates a new "branch" in reality. So if that were the case, each branch or reality would be part (or originated) from the same original reality, sort of speak, but would be a new reality by itself, as no other "thing" could jump from one branch to another or even be aware of other branches. So, we would have many realities that fundamentally in nature behave in the same way.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Good point.

Thinking about it, is there one fundamental nature of reality or are there many depending on one's perspective. I don't mean different interpretations of the same reality. I mean actual different realities.
I'm more inclined to the theory that each decision we make and action we take (even at subatomic levels) creates a new "branch" in reality.

How does one make a decision or take an action at subatomic level.

[kaffeine]

How does one make a decision or take an action at subatomic level.
Not conscious decisions/actions. But there are some experiments that suggest that movement of subatomic particles are affected by our actions in the macromolecular world. This is linked the same way that we alter the outcome of events by looking, we also alter subatomic movement by decision. (of course we don't decide where each particle go or what it does, but our thoughts and conscious actions affect them.

[SgtMajor]

Can I show my Japs eye?

[Something Else]

:lol: go for it sgt...I'm off....http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07405/runaway.gif (http://xs.to)

[Mr JP Fugley]

How does one make a decision or take an action at subatomic level.
Not conscious decisions/actions.

Surely the concept of a decision presupposes some element of consciousness. I can understand that one may have unconscious or subconscious actions. Fair do's. However isn't the idea of a decision which is not conscious an oxymoron.

[kaffeine]

However isn't the idea of a decision which is not conscious an oxymoron.
You're right.
I guess I didn't give that sentence a second thought lol.
anyway, you got my idea.

[manicgeek]

I don't think he understand mate. He seems to think that omnipresent means actually being everything, as opposed to being everywhere.
FFS.... No I don't.

To be everywhere he would have to hold a form that made that possible. Any form that has definable features such as eyes is therefore never going to be big enough to be everywhere...

How you arrived at me thinking or claiming that he is everything is waaaaaayyyyyyyy beyond any reason that I can see in anything that I said.

Like I said if his eyes are that small and he isn't a really fat bloke, how can he be everywhere

Please think about it....

[manicgeek]

Oh and the rest of this utter tosh you've wandered off into is .... mmmmm I'll leave it there.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I don't think he understand mate. He seems to think that omnipresent means actually being everything, as opposed to being everywhere.
FFS.... No I don't.

To be everywhere he would have to hold a form that made that possible. Any form that has definable features such as eyes is therefore never going to be big enough to be everywhere...

How you arrived at me thinking or claiming that he is everything is waaaaaayyyyyyyy beyond any reason that I can see in anything that I said.

Like I said if his eyes are that small and he isn't a really fat bloke, how can he be everywhere

Please think about it....

You're idea of omnipresence appears to suggest that He is physically present everywhere. That would mean that He was everything, there's no getting round that. It's a logical extension of your own argument

However as has already been explained that is only the case if He is corporeal by nature. If He is not then he can be omnipresent whilst taking up no space whatsoever.

I say again, these are fairly basic concepts. I think it may be best if you actually read what other people post, rather than base your replies on your own preconceptions of what they may be saying.

[Defy]

How did this turn into a "God" debate? Lol. :blink:

I thought the photo was pretty cool. Now where's my damn wish at! :P

[Squeamous]

What's interesting is that quantum physics tells us that by observing events we influence them and that the normal order of cause and effect is not a strict rule. We are now starting to observe the very beginings of the Universe so it's possible that we are also influencing it.

That's utter bollocks! What we're observing is light that's taken billions of years to get to us...how can that influence things that happened billions of years ago?

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think the title and the first post, the whole point of the thread, may have started the whole "God" motif.

[Squeamous]

Well it's descended into a bollocks motif now.

[Mr JP Fugley]

What's interesting is that quantum physics tells us that by observing events we influence them and that the normal order of cause and effect is not a strict rule. We are now starting to observe the very beginings of the Universe so it's possible that we are also influencing it.

That's utter bollocks! What we're observing is light that's taken billions of years to get to us...how can that influence things that happened billions of years ago?

Actually you're right. What a lot of shite.

How the fuck could I let these people drag me into their madness.

Thanks for the head's up mate.

[Squeamous]

lmfao!

[Mr JP Fugley]

Well it's descended into a bollocks motif now.

Again true. You are the voice of reason in a World run mad.

[kaffeine]

Oh and the rest of this utter tosh you've wandered off into is .... mmmmm I'll leave it there.
very good point. well explained also.

Well it's descended into a bollocks motif now.
+1.. this is complete BS. thank god someone gave some sense into this!

[manicgeek]

You're idea of omnipresence appears to suggest that He is physically present everywhere. That would mean that He was everything, there's no getting round that. It's a logical extension of your own argument

However as has already been explained that is only the case if He is corporeal by nature. If He is not then he can be omnipresent whilst taking up no space whatsoever.

I say again, these are fairly basic concepts. I think it may be best if you actually read what other people post, rather than base your replies on your own preconceptions of what they may be saying.

What a load of bollocks, how does being present everywhere imply being everything... basic concepts my arse, you're waffling.

Omnipresence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous) as in "the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time"

See and Wiki is never wrong ;)

[Mr JP Fugley]

Omnipresent doesn't mean "the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time". It means being present everywhere at the same time.

As such if something is physically omnipresent then it is everything.

I say again there's no way round that.

[manicgeek]

As such if something is physically omnipresent then it is everything.

I can't help but wonder if you're working on the premise that because everything is matter, that matter must be omnipresent, and that therefore omnipresence is everything... which is not what the word omnipresent means.

So according to your wonderful theory the passage of time (which by any means of measurement is omnipresent) is everything, are you sure that you really want to argue that ?

[weenden]

made my wish the same one i always wish and in 3000 years its still not come true

[Mr JP Fugley]

As such if something is physically omnipresent then it is everything.

I can't help but wonder if you're working on the premise that because everything is matter, that matter must be omnipresent, and that therefore omnipresence is everything... which is not what the word omnipresent means.


:blink: I'm not even going to ask if you're a wee bit mental, you've already demonstrated that, loads of times. Your description of omnipresence as being an "ability" was a particular favourite.

Being omnipresent means being everywhere at the same time. If something was physically omnipresent that would mean it would have to actually physically be everywhere, there's no way of physically being everywhere without physically being everything. How is that hard to understand.

Bearing in mind that you are the only person here to have suggested that God's omnipresence was physical. "Ooooo that was good"

[CrabGirl]

Is matter not omnipresent then?

[CrabGirl]

stupid double post.

[thewizeard]

If there is a God, then in my opinion, he/she is all that there is.. physical and spiritual..we are all part of God... omnipresent.

[CrabGirl]

There is no god.

[thewizeard]

I lean toward Buddhism..so I tend to agree

[Sextent]

Is matter not omnipresent then?

No, not even close.

[Sextent]

There is no god.

Tell him that when you see him.

[Snaidis]

There is no god.
Only god knows if there is or there isn't.
I believe that there is.

[Mr JP Fugley]

There is no god.
Only god knows if there is.
I believe that there is.

Fixed.

A being can be aware of it's own existence. How can something possibly be aware that it doesn't exist.

[manicgeek]

:blink: I'm not even going to ask if you're a wee bit mental, you've already demonstrated that, loads of times. Your description of omnipresence as being an "ability" was a particular favourite.

Ummm I think if you look back you'll find that's not my description.


Being omnipresent means being everywhere at the same time. If something was physically omnipresent that would mean it would have to actually physically be everywhere, there's no way of physically being everywhere without physically being everything. How is that hard to understand.

Your assigning amazing extra attributes to this definition of omnipresence. So you are saying that the passage of time is everything ? Or are you going to continue to avoid answering this question ?


Bearing in mind that you are the only person here to have suggested that God's omnipresence was physical. "Ooooo that was good"
Really! Where exactly did I say that ?

[manicgeek]

Is matter not omnipresent then?That'll depend on whether you believe there is such a thing as anti-matter surely ?

And of course dark-matter, and vacuums (if they really exist) raise more questions like yours.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'm just putting you on ignore early doors this time Billy_Clone. I just find you tedious now.

[manicgeek]

OK I'll take it that you find the question too awkward then.

[thewizeard]

OK I'll take it that you find the question too awkward then.

All these thoughts are but ideas relative truths for the absolute truth more mental preparation is required and it's not at all possible to describe it in words... one needs to use different senses to understand it.. like a peach you will need to like.. taste it..

also remember this manicgeek ..A teacher's answer to a question of a pupil ought to be clear and definite ..If mistrustful or unintelligent questioning is kept up, it only serves to annoy the teacher ...he does well to ignore it in silence and refuses to be tempted by questions implying doubt. ..