Us

[Miles]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #93]

The problem with your thinking I am conflating mind and spirit is that there is no differentiating these re their attributes, so it is obvious that they are/should be regarded as the same thing.

I am open to being shown why they are not, but even that you have attempted to show there is fundamental difference between these, those examples you gave above are things we know are “of the mind” – can be attributed to mindfulness. Forcing a supernatural aspect to the mind by referring to it as “Spirit” would also mean that all minds are “supernatural”.

Mind and spirit do have different attributes. By way of definition,

Matter = ephemeral material; raw energy even
Mind = consciousness most basically, but also related capabilities like reason, emotion, etc. It has energy and is itself a form of energy, and as such is inseparable from matter (like light from a lightbulb).
Spirit = a non-material being. It has no energy in itself or material that can be measured. It can manifest in and through mind and matter (this is true), but it also has a completely separate non-material existence. (Think something as basic as the number one here, which has a similar non-material existence. Or justice. Are these not things in their own right?)

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not. I would also argue more objective, while mind is by nature individualistic and subjective. (Matter is objective as well, like spirit, but in a much more measurable way.)

So how are they not separate substances in your view? Or is your point more that the spirit realm I'm talking about simply doesn't exist? And you'd rather just harmonize it all by positing a single, eternal being? (Which is how I read your BNP, reducing everything I'm talking about into ideas in that mind...)

g
The Bridging Natural Philosophy I mentioned, accepts the Source Mind is eternal and therefore all subsequent minds breathed into functional forms are also eternal but regards this as natural rather than supernatural.

Did you read the summary re the BNP I linked?

Yes, but what you provided was more a thesis than full argument. I still don't see why there needs to be an Source Mind, or what this really is or does in your view besides being one eternal being of mind and matter.

Summary of our interaction so far:

You and I are engaged in a discussion about the nature of mind, spirit, and the framework of "The Bridging Natural Philosophy" (BNP).

You argue for distinct entities—mind, matter, and spirit—each with unique attributes, while emphasizing the eternal and spiritual aspects of the latter.
I, on the other hand, maintain that mind and spirit lack differentiation in their attributes and express skepticism about introducing a supernatural element re the mind.

Importantly - the BNP as proposed, also states that matter is not distinct from mind.

BNP offers a holistic perspective that recognizes the interconnectedness of mind/spirit and matter, within a naturalistic framework. The debate centers on whether mind/spirit and matter, can be reconciled as aspects of a unified entity and how BNP provides a bridge between materialist and supernaturalist ideologies.

That summarizes things. And don't get me wrong, I think mind, matter, and spirit are all interconnected. I just think we should lump mind and matter together given their stronger affinity and juxtapose this to spirit, more specifically the spirit of God. Bridging that is the real problem to solve.

[theophile]

I've said as much before, but it's ultimately just God talking to God in your view, which is what makes the 'Us' part hard to swallow for me, or feel like a bit of a cop out. i.e., there's no true plurality or separate, non-God being involved. It's as if God is asexual in creation, which flies in the face of other creative acts we see in the bible, like the conception of Jesus, which involved Mary along with the Holy Spirit, right?

So where is Mary in your view, or are you saying she is non-essential in all this, or that Genesis 1 is somehow different, and doesn't follow this NT parallel and involvement of a female form?

I suggest you can find her in Genesis 1:2 and the primordial presence there you want to ignore, i.e., the deep / sea and its uncreated waters.

Do you ever talk to yourself? Do you devise plans? Do you carry out your plans?

It’s no different with God. He has a logos, which is His written and spoken message to the world, and He has a Spirit to carry out His plans. Yet, He is ONE God, just as you are one. Though the Scriptures present Him as three persons, He is still ONE God.

You just said it right here... A written and spoken message to the world... Where is creation without the world being there on the receiving end, and doing what is called for by God? Without ones like you for example?

That is Mary, or the deep in Genesis 1. A critical participant without which nothing gets done. i.e., without whom there is no Jesus or light...

I think the difference between you & I is I have faith in what God’s word says, even though sometimes the things I read seem illogical. I mean, it’s by faith that I believe Lazarus could be raised from the dead three days after he’d died. It’s also by faith that I believe Jesus is God. The Bible says He is (John 1:1). By faith I accept every word that proceeds from the mouth of God as truth.

No, I have faith in every word that God says, and see the logic of it.

You will need to prove with Scripture your theory about Mary. I see no connection to Genesis 1:2 whatsoever.

Genesis 1 is a creation story. Mary is a key participant in another creation story - the conception and birth of Jesus. From John 1, we know that Jesus is the light. This is a clear reference to Genesis 1:3, right? Hence the creation of Jesus in the gospels can be directly connected to the creation of the light in Genesis 1. Same story, just told in a different way...

At the very least, we should see a strong parallel here and ask the question of Mary, and if there's not something Mary-like in Genesis 1. And lo and behold, there is, in Genesis 1:2, and she similarly conceives by the Holy Spirit there...

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #101]

Mind and spirit do have different attributes. By way of definition,

Matter = ephemeral material; raw energy even
Mind = consciousness most basically, but also related capabilities like reason, emotion, etc. It has energy and is itself a form of energy, and as such is inseparable from matter (like light from a lightbulb).
Spirit = a non-material being. It has no energy in itself or material that can be measured. It can manifest in and through mind and matter (this is true), but it also has a completely separate non-material existence. (Think something as basic as the number one here, which has a similar non-material existence. Or justice. Are these not things in their own right?)

There is no necessity which requires the existence of any non-material "thing".

Look at your examples. What they are - are simply ideas to describe real things...as in "1" doesn't exist as a "thing" and only exist as an idea of a thing - such as one universe. Same with "justice" - it exists as a symbol which is descriptive of a type of action.

If spirit describes any type of attitude, and attitude describes a thing (action) then both words mean the same thing.

So when one says "One God" it is speaking of an overall source creator - which is recognized as the mindfulness/consciousness in all things - so has many "parts" just as the universe is one universe with many parts.

Or, take your example of non material justice. If justice did not exist as a real thing, then one could say "there is no such thing as justice." Not "Justice exists as a non-material thing, even though there is no evidence of it existing as a thing."

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not.

This is contrary to the understanding that the Source Creator is mindful and suggests that it is not eternal, whereas you are also arguing that ideas (like "1" and "justice" and "spirit") are.

But where do such concepts come from, if not from mindfulness?

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not. I would also argue more objective, while mind is by nature individualistic and subjective. (Matter is objective as well, like spirit, but in a much more measurable way.)

All things are matter and there is no such thing as non-material. Matter is eternal. Matter organized onto functional forms is temporal (functional forms are temporal but the stuff they are made of is not). Functional form is objective but can mindfully be experienced subjectively. Mindfulness is always subjective.

So how are they not separate substances in your view?

There is no separation that is real. You and I are able to experience each other as separate from our own sense of self, because of the design of the functional form we are currently experiencing, but quintessentially, we are of the same breath - of the One God/Source Creator...essentially we are the Source Creator experience being the human beings we are experiencing being.

Or is your point more that the spirit realm I'm talking about simply doesn't exist?

According to many reports there appears to be a "Realm/Realms" that people experience after the death of their body. This is often referred to in supernaturalist terminology as "sprit", but the BNP sees every experience as "of the mind/experienced mindfully" - specifically everything which can mindfully be experienced is of The Mind of The Source Creator. There is no mind outside of said mind. What we refer to as the physical realm (this universe) is within the mind of the Source Creator.

And you'd rather just harmonize it all by positing a single, eternal being?

The idea isn't new. It makes sense, and often the disharmony we experience as humans can be traced to a lack of this fundamental knowledge. This concept dovetails with what I wrote above and have used blue font for easier referrence.

Yes, but what you provided was more a thesis than full argument.

It is just a summary, which is all I said it was. Something which can be easily read and understood.
I am working on expanding the concept with points, but as an initial broadcast, the summary is adequate enough for our purpose in this moment.

I still don't see why there needs to be an Source Mind, or what this really is or does in your view besides being one eternal being of mind and matter.

I have been working on a more comprehensive description of the main points re this Natural Philosophy. It is still a work in progress, but I have posted what I have done so far, and therein you will find the answer to that question.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #101]

Mind and spirit do have different attributes. By way of definition,

Matter = ephemeral material; raw energy even
Mind = consciousness most basically, but also related capabilities like reason, emotion, etc. It has energy and is itself a form of energy, and as such is inseparable from matter (like light from a lightbulb).
Spirit = a non-material being. It has no energy in itself or material that can be measured. It can manifest in and through mind and matter (this is true), but it also has a completely separate non-material existence. (Think something as basic as the number one here, which has a similar non-material existence. Or justice. Are these not things in their own right?)

There is no necessity which requires the existence of any non-material "thing".

Look at your examples. What they are - are simply ideas to describe real things...as in "1" doesn't exist as a "thing" and only exist as an idea of a thing - such as one universe. Same with "justice" - it exists as a symbol which is descriptive of a type of action.

If spirit describes any type of attitude, and attitude describes a thing (action) then both words mean the same thing.

So when one says "One God" it is speaking of an overall source creator - which is recognized as the mindfulness/consciousness in all things - so has many "parts" just as the universe is one universe with many parts.

Or, take your example of non material justice. If justice did not exist as a real thing, then one could say "there is no such thing as justice." Not "Justice exists as a non-material thing, even though there is no evidence of it existing as a thing."

I think we have different bars for what it takes for something to exist. To me it makes no sense to say there is justice in an action without also affirming some abstract thing called justice that we see manifested in that action and that we are ultimately referring to. Thing-hood is the bar for existence, not material presence, and the bar for thing-hood is pretty low.

And I don't mean by this the idea of justice in some mind that is thinking it. That too (I agree) would be reducible to material presence. I'm abstracting beyond this, to what all the minds across time that have ever perceived justice or formulated it in some way were ultimately referring to. Even if it went under different names or wasn't recognized as such.

So yah, I do think we can say justice exists as a non-material thing, even if it has no presence in the material world. We have named it. We can describe it. We can recognize it when we see it and trace its presence across time. It has no energy in itself, but it still has a certain power in the material world, and can move things toward it. (See Aristotle's concepts of the final cause or unmoved mover for example -- non-material things like justice have a similar ability to move matter / minds. Not through their own energy or agency, but through persuasion, and drawing mindful things towards them. They have a certain gravity that pulls us in.)

So you can dismiss such things all you want since they lack material presence in themselves (I get it), but it seems to me there is nevertheless an insubstantial existence out there with an essential nature we can describe. And these things play a meaningful role in the material world that can't just be removed from the equation.

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not.

This is contrary to the understanding that the Source Creator is mindful and suggests that it is not eternal, whereas you are also arguing that ideas (like "1" and "justice" and "spirit") are.

But where do such concepts come from, if not from mindfulness?

I've said that such things likely emerged from the deep, or from mindful beings in the deep. But that doesn't mean there needs to be one eternal mind from which they emerged. Rather they emerged from the multitude of minds that have ever existed. And once thought, they take on a life of their own and an eternal aspect. (Creation myth#1 - created by mind)

Now whether justice (for example) would have never existed even non-materially if no mind ever thought it, that's an interesting question. But I would say even if unthought, it is still thinkable... Like a treasure yet to be discovered, discovery is not a condition for that treasure's existence... (Creation myth#2 - uncreated)

(As you can imagine, either way, there's a lot of non-material things that really are inconsequential. But there are some that have real importance - like justice. These are the things I'm more focused on. The non-material things that really move us, and have an impact on the world around us whether for good or bad. These are what I would call spirits. In this case, the spirit of justice, which calls us to it, and which can cause real movements around it that we can trace across time. Think a movement like 'Me Too' which typifies such a spirit in action... Such things attain to a level of existence that is meaningful, having material effect that can't be ignored.)

This is what makes spirit eternal, while mind is not. I would also argue more objective, while mind is by nature individualistic and subjective. (Matter is objective as well, like spirit, but in a much more measurable way.)

All things are matter and there is no such thing as non-material. Matter is eternal. Matter organized onto functional forms is temporal (functional forms are temporal but the stuff they are made of is not). Functional form is objective but can mindfully be experienced subjectively. Mindfulness is always subjective.

I don't disagree with any of that except the first sentence.

Or is your point more that the spirit realm I'm talking about simply doesn't exist?

According to many reports there appears to be a "Realm/Realms" that people experience after the death of their body. This is often referred to in supernaturalist terminology as "sprit", but the BNP sees every experience as "of the mind/experienced mindfully" - specifically everything which can mindfully be experienced is of The Mind of The Source Creator. There is no mind outside of said mind. What we refer to as the physical realm (this universe) is within the mind of the Source Creator.

That's not the kind of spirit realm I'm talking about. This is a popular co-opting of the spirit realm by mind -- turning it into something more mind-like that mind can inhabit after it dies, where all minds go as part of some after-life. I'm talking about something completely different.

I still don't see why there needs to be an Source Mind, or what this really is or does in your view besides being one eternal being of mind and matter.

I have been working on a more comprehensive description of the main points re this Natural Philosophy. It is still a work in progress, but I have posted what I have done so far, and therein you will find the answer to that question.

I'll try to take a look here later.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #104]

So you can dismiss such things all you want since they lack material presence in themselves (I get it), but it seems to me there is nevertheless an insubstantial existence out there with an essential nature we can describe. And these things play a meaningful role in the material world that can't just be removed from the equation.

Re the Natural Philosophy mentioned, The Source Creator (Universal Mind) is acknowledged, but the concept of justice is something which is unnecessary unless the created thing allows for it to be necessary.
So, in that sense, there is no “non-source” and there is agreement that there does exist a Source from where all the minds across time that have ever perceived justice or formulated it in some way are ultimately referring to.
The only difference in that regard between the two philosophies is that the Source Mind is not supernatural and does not reside somewhere separate, outside of this universe but is actively involved in every aspect of this universes continual unfolding.

From the Natural Philosophy.

24. God as Mindful Elemental:
• In this Natural Philosophy, "God" is conceptualized as a mindful elemental that existed in a timeless state without organized matter.
• Sound or frequency plays a role in organizing matter into functional forms.
25. Unorganized Matter and Mindfulness:
• This Natural Philosophy posits that unorganized matter is mindful and has been eternal.
• It rejects the idea of spontaneous accidents as explanations for the organization of matter and instead offers mindfulness as a reason.
26. Solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness:
• By incorporating mindfulness into the "undifferentiated sea of energy," this Natural Philosophy solves the hard problem of consciousness.
• It eliminates the need for a "supernatural" element to explain the existence of our universe.
27. Mind as Material and Real:
• This Natural Philosophy regards the mind as material, though current science may not detect its physical nature except when interacting with detectable physical objects like brains.
• It rejects the notion that the mind is a magical or immaterial concept.
28. Handling Qualia and the Hard Problem:
• This Natural Philosophy addresses the problem of Qualia by incorporating the hypothesis of the Universal Mind.
• It offers a solution to the hard problem of consciousness by including mindfulness as an attribute of fundamental matter.
29. Combining Solutions to Philosophical Problems:
• This Natural Philosophy combines solutions to the problems of why consciousness exists and the problem of infinite regress.
• It removes the supernatural aspect of "God" and places it within the context of nature, linking it to mindfulness.

[onewithhim]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

The "us" in the Scripture is most probably God's Son (and perhaps the angels), certainly not a Trinity of individuals. It doesn't say anything to warrant us thinking that they are equal in power and authority. God is almighty, and He is also kind and thoughtful. Why wouldn't He allow others to make things with His power, or, also, why wouldn't He let others look on while the creation was happening (like the angels)?