ashpanda

lallations of a labile lagomorph: once there was brownpanda who died leaving behind his mate ashley whom we called panda out of love and since brownpanda.blogspot.com is not available. . .the picture is ashley

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Symbiosis

Imagine space. Now imagine an object. Most of us can imagine space without objects but cannot imagine an object without space. Yet, the Big Bang theory tells us that the expanding universe is defined by the objects within it. In other words, in our reality, space is the distance between objects and that objects come first.

Symbiosis is not the interdependence between objects but their unity. God is both object and space and neither object nor space. The ancients call this state spirit. Spirit exists both as being as well as in objects. In other words, the evidence for God is everywhere.

















...this page is work in progress. Keep coming back.

posted by brownpanda @ 9:05 am  

14 Comments:

  • At 8:53 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    i had an interesting thought today while stretching.

    it would be too complicated to explain with all supporting argument and background information blah blah blah. if i do can write book liao. *wink wink nudge nudge press press-oia*

    but anyway, it was this:

    god does not exist.

    at least, not in the system that is our world, which is governed by certain laws of nature aka the way things are (meant to) work. he cannot exist then because the system is defined by the laws that it exists in.

    so it's either we do not exist, or got does not exist.

    and we know we exist - and if you don't it's an argument for another day ;).

    so god does not exist...which is why he can be everywhere. and why he is also nowhere.

    is god space?

    lol. that was rhetorical btw.

     

  • At 11:56 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    of course god does not exist in any way we can assert; it makes no sense - however, given such a god, he can determine if we exist and assert our existence such that we know we exist, even if we can't do the reverse. is simple theological reasoning what, bigger can define smaller but smaller cannot define bigger...

     

  • At 3:37 pm, Blogger brownpanda said…

    tsk,tsk. of course god exists. if not, how can we know we exist? obviously, you guys haven't read descartes. if god doesn't exist in our world, why pray, pray?

    such blasphemy. and i thought i was the only one...

    you may have overstretched, dear dd...which makes it ddd, haha.

     

  • At 5:12 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    i am sure he exists but i am sure he does not need me to exist and the reverse is not true. so he doesnt need to exist in a way i can detect in any form, but i exist in a way he certainly can detect. who says god does not exist? i said he doesnt exist in a way that we can assert what... besides descartes is like a pitcher plant he falls into his own brain stem and kena digested ha ha!

     

  • At 6:20 pm, Blogger brownpanda said…

    ah...so, the real question is do i exist in any way that you, or anybody else, can assert? you see, either we exist or we don't. assertion has nothing to do with it.

     

  • At 6:27 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    alamak. i apologise for being so unclear.

    god does not exist within this system . malkovich you miss the point. "of course god does not exist in any way we can assert; it makes no sense" - this is NOT my argument, although it is certainly true.

    tsk,tsk. of course god exists. if not, how can we know we exist? --> this argument is unsound since it is based on the premise that we are created by god.

    how do we know we are created at all?

    ai! i defend against attacks, but evidently from your responses, my argument has not been sufficiently advanced. i shall blog about this after promos.

     

  • At 6:40 pm, Blogger brownpanda said…

    ..and all this time, i thought that the whole point of my existence is to assert that god exists and to abide with him (which, logically, must be within my system, not his).

    *sigh* have i been wrongly asserting and abiding? oh lord, lord, whither art thou?

    dear folks, the whole point of argument is to misread each other. otherwise, our vocabulary will comprise only one word - yes, dear. oops, that's two.

     

  • At 9:05 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ah. I much prefer your students' architecture blog, largely because I was once an architect wanna-be who decided to do history and also because this theological conumdrum is beyond me unlike my friend autolycus.

     

  • At 9:46 pm, Blogger alchemist said…

    I don't think Malkovich has necessarily said that we are created by God. I think he is saying that if we define God the way we do for the purposes of argument, then it logically follows that God's existence can be beyond any attempt to define in terms of time and space.

    On the other hand, why should we care whether we are created at all if we cannot even assert we exist. Assertion has everything to do with it if you quote Descartes. Without assertion, existence might be illusion. To assert that our perceptions are equivalent to evidence of our existence is an act of faith.

    We cannot assume that we, in binary fashion) either exist or not; we might be Schrodinger people, who exist (or fail to exist) only if observed by others...

     

  • At 10:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    dear daddy, in response to your whither art thou, god is everywhere. and nowhere.

    haha.

    and proof that he cannot exist in the system we live in is actually indirect proof that he must exist...same same like your progression from god and evil, and good and devil (i assure you your word play is not missed ;)).

     

  • At 10:30 am, Blogger brownpanda said…

    Dear Malkovich, your existence is necessary because God cannot love you otherwise. Dear Alchemist, I did not quote Descartes that I am aware of. I simply pointed to him because what he said was relevant to what dd and malkovich said. In any case, why must we be logical? It is so restrictive. Truth asserts itself simply by its very presence - or, if you like, existence itself is assertion.

    If I have been logical, and I believe I used the word once or twice, it was only to mislead. Trust me.

     

  • At 10:31 am, Blogger brownpanda said…

    Dear anonymousnoises, me too. Enjoy.

     

  • At 10:34 am, Blogger brownpanda said…

    We cannot assume if we don't exist, to misquote Descartes.

     

  • At 5:18 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    we exist we exist

    gah

    so hard to understand my argument meh?

    it is NOT based on the premise that god has created us

    it is based on the premise that we exist; but like i said, it was an argument for another day - i.e. the premise, since it was a premise, should be a well-established one right? but no time to establish so argue another day

    but beyond its purpose as a premise it has little function in my argument. argue against the argument, if you want to renounce its rhetoric or truth.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home